User talk:RobinK

DSPACE, etc.

Thanks for several corrections and a {{dn}} fix. I don't know why I didn't see Alternation (complexity)...

CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem. You didn't see it because I fixed the disambiguation page for Alternation to list Alternation (complexity) instead of (algorithms), and created a redirect from (complexity) -> Alternating TM, after you were done disambiguating. --Robin (talk) 13:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

AM,MA

Hi Robin, thanks for the fix in Arthur–Merlin_protocol. I saw that the current condition for AM reads as follows (and is correct)

• if x is not in L, then $\Pr \nolimits _{y\in \{0,1\}^{p(n)}}(\forall z\in \{0,1\}^{q(n)}\,M(x,y,z)=0)\geq 2/3.$

I wanted to note that it can be equally written as

• if x is not in L, then $\Pr \nolimits _{y\in \{0,1\}^{p(n)}}(\exists z\in \{0,1\}^{q(n)}\,M(x,y,z)=1)\leq 1/3.$

However, the second condition seems to go well together with the x is in L condition, as 2/3 and 1/3 add up to 1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sg313d (talk • contribs) 07:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I felt the first one contrasts better with the condition for x in L, since for x in L, the condition says that "there exists" something, I felt the condition for x not in L would look better if it said something like "for all". Both are correct though, and I wouldn't mind changing to the other definition if that seems clearer. Also, this way it looks similar to the definition of MA. --Robin (talk) 13:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I decided to add both definitions, since there's no harm giving extra information. --Robin (talk) 13:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I have marked you as a reviewer

I have added the "reviewers" property to your user account. This property is related to the Pending changes system that is currently being tried. This system loosens page protection by allowing anonymous users to make "pending" changes which don't become "live" until they're "reviewed". However, logged-in users always see the very latest version of each page with no delay. A good explanation of the system is given in this image. The system is only being used for pages that would otherwise be protected from editing.

If there are "pending" (unreviewed) edits for a page, they will be apparent in a page's history screen; you do not have to go looking for them. There is, however, a list of all articles with changes awaiting review at Special:OldReviewedPages. Because there are so few pages in the trial so far, the latter list is almost always empty. The list of all pages in the pending review system is at Special:StablePages.

To use the system, you can simply edit the page as you normally would, but you should also mark the latest revision as "reviewed" if you have looked at it to ensure it isn't problematic. Edits should generally be accepted if you wouldn't undo them in normal editing: they don't have obvious vandalism, personal attacks, etc. If an edit is problematic, you can fix it by editing or undoing it, just like normal. You are permitted to mark your own changes as reviewed.

The "reviewers" property does not obligate you to do any additional work, and if you like you can simply ignore it. The expectation is that many users will have this property, so that they can review pending revisions in the course of normal editing. However, if you explicitly want to decline the "reviewer" property, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC) — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. --Robin (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Quantum phase estimation algorithm

H Robin. Thanks for having a go at improving this article. However in doing so you have inadvertantly reverted some of my encyclopedic tone edits. Please restore these if you can in order to avoid the use of personal pronouns such as you and we and phrases that could be considered to be the opinion of the author: ( {{cn}} tags). Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 04:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I got rid of the "we" in the lead. I did not remove any of your {{cn}} tags, only a {{whom}} tag, because the previous line proves the assertion. --Robin (talk) 04:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)