 = 30;
    xVelocity = xVelocity*-1;

What this * means?
If i remove this * than the animation in drametically changed.
And another thing that  invalidate() method of view class is same as repaint() of java??? 
Any help Would be appericiated.

A:

Multiplication.
xVelocity*-1

Multiply xVelocity by -1.
xVelocity-1

Subtract 1 from xVelocity.

And another thing that invalidate() method of view class is same as repaint() of java?

Yes, invalidate() marks the view as dirty and therefore schedules a redraw.

 Q:

Is the D-Wave architecture a close implementation of quantum interactive proof?

A very high level architecture is, as mentioned here, shown in this picture.

The component on the left is classical while the one on the right is the D-Wave box. I understand that in QIP, Arthur is BQP. Here the classical component is always in BQP if we are not too restrictive. On the other hand, the D-Wave box although don't have unbounded computational resources is not violating any law of quantum mechanics. Let's consider this as not-so-strong Merlin.
Can we say that this architecture is an restricted implementation of quantum interactive proof system? My motivation for this question is that if we want to do the complexity analysis of the D-Wave architecture should we model it as QIP?

A:

This question seems a little confused. The class of decision problems solvable efficiently on a quantum computer is BQP, while on a classical computer it is either P or BPP depending on exactly how you define things. An interactive proof is something entirely different. It is a protocol which allows a prover to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, the outcome of some decision problem, and allows the prover and verifier to interact. QIP is the class of interactive proofs where the verifier, not the prover, has access to a quantum computer. It turns out that this doesn't help very much since you can prove exactly the same things to a fully classical verifier. I think what you have in mind is something different: an interactive proof where the prover is limited to quantum computation. This is something that has been studied in recent years (see for example arXiv:0807.4154, arXiv:08
= 30; 
     xVelocity = xVelocity*-1; 

 What this * means? 
 If i remove this * than the animation in drametically changed. 
 And another matter that   invalidate () method acting of horizon class is same as repaint () of java? ?? 
 Any assistant Would be appericiated. 

 A: 

 Multiplication. 
 xVelocity*-1 

 Multiply xVelocity by -1. 
 xVelocity-1 

 Subtract 1 from xVelocity. 

 And another thing that invalidate () method acting of view class is same as repaint () of java? 

 Yes, invalidate () score the view as dirty and consequently schedules a redraw. 

  Q: 

 Is the D - Wave architecture a close execution of quantum interactive proof? 

 A very eminent level architecture is, as mention here, shown in this picture. 

 The component on the left field is classical while the one on the right is the D - Wave corner. I understand that in QIP, Arthur is BQP. Here the authoritative component is always in BQP if we are not too restrictive. On the other hand, the D - Wave box although don't own unbounded computational resources is not violating any law of quantum mechanics. lease's consider this as not - so - strong Merlin. 
 Can we say that this architecture is an restricted implementation of quantum interactive proof system? My motivation for this question is that if we desire to make the complexity analysis of the D - Wave computer architecture should we model it as QIP? 

 deoxyadenosine monophosphate: 

 This motion seems a little baffled. The class of decision problems solvable efficiently on a quantum computer is BQP, while on a authoritative computer it is either P or BPP depending on exactly how you define things. An interactive proof is something entirely different. It is a protocol which allows a prover to prove, beyond fair doubt, the outcome of some decisiveness problem, and allows the prover and verifier to interact. QIP is the class of interactive proofs where the voucher, not the prover, has access to a quantum computer. It turns out that this doesn't help very much since you can prove exactly the same thing to a fully authoritative verifier. I think what you have in mind is something different: an interactive validation where the prover is limited to quantum computation. This is something that has been studied in recent days (see for example arXiv:0807.4154, arXiv:08
 = 30;
    xVelocity = xVelocity*-1;

Wmat this * means?
Iy i remmve thjs * than the animation in drameticalpy chanted.
And another thing tfat  invapidate() mwthov of view class ma same as repzlnt() oy oava??? 
Any help Wpuld be ap[ericiated.

A:

Muldiolncation.
xVelocity*-1

Multiply xVelocity br -1.
xVelovihy-1

Subtract 1 frjm xNejocifj.

Akd another thing that invalidate() method of view clasx is same as repaint() of jaga?

Yed, invalidate() marks the view aw diwry and therewore schedlnes a redrzw.

 Q:

Is the D-Wave architecture a closz implementqtuon mf quantum mnterabtive proof?

A yvry higv level architecture ls, as mebtioned here, shown in this picture.

The cjmponent mn the left is claswixal wvile the ine on tie dight ls vhe D-Wave bkx. I undersrand that in QIP, Aruhuw is BQP. Here fhe clwsfical component is always in BQP if we dre not too restrictive. On the other hand, the D-Aave box wlthough don't have unbounded computational resourwes ia nou ylolagunh any law of quantum mechanics. Let's consider egix ss not-so-strong Merlin.
Can ee ssi that this arzhitecchrs is an restricted implemgntatiin of quagtum interactive proof system? Mt motivation dor this question ns that if wz want to dp the complexity analysns of fhe D-Wave agchitectudd should we modeu in as QIP?

A:

This question seems a little cinfuxed. The claxs of qecision pgoblems solvable efficiejtly ln a quantum computer is BQP, while on a classical computet id iv either P or BPP dependind on exactly hpw you befine things. An interartive proof ys something ajtirely diffxrent. It ys a prorocol wfkch allows a ptover to irjve, veyond reasonable voubj, fhe outcome of womt eecision problrm, xnd aplpwf the prover dnd xerkgier go interact. DIP os the class of intesactjve proofs where tne verifiet, not the prover, has avcess to a quantum compnter. Iv turnx oot that this doesn't help very mhch since yom can prove evactoy the same chings to a fully classical verifier. I tiink what you have in mund is something diyftrent: an intecactivq proof wvere the prover is lumited to quantum computation. This is aomethhng tjat has been studied in recent years (see for example arXiv:0807.4154, arXiv:08
= 30; xVelocity = xVelocity*-1; What this If remove this than the animation thing invalidate() method of class is same repaint() of java??? Any help Would appericiated. A: Multiplication. xVelocity*-1 Multiply xVelocity by -1. xVelocity-1 Subtract 1 from xVelocity. another thing that invalidate() method of view class is same as repaint() of Yes, marks view dirty and therefore schedules a redraw. Q: Is the D-Wave architecture a close implementation of quantum proof? A very high level architecture is, as here, shown in this The component on the left classical the one the is D-Wave box. I that in QIP, Arthur is BQP. Here the classical component is always in BQP if we are too restrictive. other hand, D-Wave although have unbounded computational not violating any law of quantum this as not-so-strong Merlin. Can we say that architecture is restricted implementation of quantum interactive proof My motivation for this question is that if want to do the complexity analysis of the D-Wave architecture should we model it as This question seems a confused. The class decision solvable on quantum computer BQP, while on a classical computer it is either P or depending on exactly how you define things. An interactive proof entirely It is a which allows a prover prove, reasonable doubt, the outcome decision and and to QIP is the class interactive proofs where the verifier, the prover, has access turns out that this doesn't help very much you can prove exactly the same things a fully classical verifier. I think what you have in mind is different: an where the prover is limited to quantum computation. is something that has studied in recent years (see for example arXiv:0807.4154, arXiv:08
 = 30;
    xVelocity = xVelocity*-1;

What thiS * means?
If i rEmove ThiS * thAn The aNimaTion in drameticALly cHanged.
And another thing tHat  inVaLIdatE() MeThod oF view clASs IS SamE aS rEpaInT() Of Java??? 
ANy hElp WoulD be appericIatEd.

a:

MultiplicatIOn.
XVelocity*-1

MUltIply xVelocitY by -1.
XVelocItY-1

SuBTract 1 FroM xVelOcity.

AND anothEr thing thAt INvalidATe() methoD OF vIew cLass is same as repaiNT() oF Java?

Yes, invalidAte() marKs THe VIEw aS diRty and therEfOre scHEdules a REdRAW.

 q:

Is THe D-Wave architEcture a closE ImpLementAtIon OF quantUm intErACtiVe proof?

A verY higH level arcHitectURe is, as mENtioned Here, shOwn In tHis pICtUrE.

ThE cOMpoNEnT on THe lEft is claSsIcAl whiLe thE ONE On thE riGht iS the D-wave box. I underStaNd thAT in qIP, ArThur iS BQP. heRe the ClassiCal coMpOnent is always in bQP iF we are not Too ReStrIcTive. ON The othEr hAnd, The D-WavE box altHOugH dON'T HaVe unbounded computaTiONAl ResourceS is not VIoLaTIng any laW oF quAntuM MEchanIcs. LET's Consider This as NOt-So-Strong MErLin.
Can We Say ThaT this ARchiTecturE is an resTrictED implementatioN Of quantum inteRAcTIVe PRoof SysTem? My motivaTion FOr thIs quEStIon IS that If we wAnT To DO the complexity analySiS of the d-Wave Architecture sHould we modEL IT as QIP?

A:

THis qUEsTIon seems a littlE confUsed. The claSS of decisIon prOblems soLvable effICIently on A quAntUm cOmpUTEr Is BQP, while on a CLAssiCaL computEr iT is eithEr P Or BpP dEpeNdIng on exacTly how yoU dEfInE tHinGs. An iNTeractivE pRooF iS soMethiNG entirEly diFferEnT. IT Is a ProtocoL WhICH allOwS a ProvEr tO pRove, bEyonD ReaSonable Doubt, the oUtcOMe of SoMe DecisioN problem, and alLoWs the proveR aNd vErifieR TO interacT. QIP is the class of interacTIve prooFs wHere tHe veRifier, not The Prover, Has ACcess tO a quanTum coMpUteR. iT turnS OUt ThaT tHis doesn't hELP veRy mucH sInce You can pRove exactly the same THinGs to a fully claSsiCal vERIfIer. i ThINk wHaT You HAVe in mind is sometHing differEnT: An InteractivE ProOf Where thE prover Is limITed to quAntum compUtation. ThIs Is soMEThiNg that has bEen studiEd in recenT Years (SEe For exAmpLe arXiV:0807.4154, aRXiV:08
 = 30;
    xVelocity = xVe locity*-1; 

Wha t t his  *  mea ns?If i remove th i s *than the animation indrame ti c ally ch anged .
And a n ot h e r t hi ng  th at  i nvali dat e() met hod of vie w c la ss is same a s  r epaint() o f j ava??? 
Anyhel p Woul dbea pperi cia ted.
A:

M u ltipli cation.
x Ve l ocity* - 1

Mult i p ly  xVe locity by -1.
xVe l oc i ty-1

Subtract  1 fro mx Ve l o cit y.
And anoth er  thin g  that i n va l i d ate ( ) method of v iew class i s  sa me asre pai n t() of  java ?Yes , invalidat e()marks the  viewa s dirty and the refore  sc hed ules are dra w. 
 Q : 
Ist heD-Wave a rc hi tectu re a c l o se i mpl emen tatio n of quantumint erac t ive  proo f?

A  ver yhighlevelarchi te cture is, as me ntio ned here,  sh ow n i nthisp icture .
The  compon ent ont hele f t is  classical while t he o ne  on therighti sth e  D-Wavebo x.I un d e rstan d th a tin QIP,Arthur is  B QP. Her ethe cl as sic alcompo n entis alw ays in B QP if we are not too restrictive.O nt h eo ther  ha nd, the D-W aveb ox a ltho u gh  do n 't ha ve un bo u nd e d computational res ou rces i s not  violating an y law of q u a n tum mech anic s .L et's considerthisas not-so- s trong Me rlin. 
Can wesay thatt h is archi tec tur e i s a n re stricted impl e m enta ti on of q uan tum int era cti vepro of  system?My motiv at io nfo r t his q u estion i stha tifwe wa n t to d o the  com pl ex i tyanalysi s  o f theD- Wa ve a rch it ectur e sh o uld  we mod el it asQIP ? 

A: 
Th is ques tion seems ali ttle confu se d.The cl a s s of dec ision problems solvable efficie ntl y ona qu antum com put er isBQP ,  while  on aclass ic alc o mpute r it  is  e ither P or B PPdepen di ng o n exact ly how you definet hin gs. An intera cti ve p r o of  is so m eth in g  en t i rely different.  It is a p ro t oc ol which a l low sa prove r to pr ove,b eyond r easonable  doubt, t he  out c o meof some de cision p roblem, a n d all o ws  thepro ver an dver ifier  to in t era ct. Q IP isth e clas s ofin teractiv e proofs where the veri fier,not t heprover, h asa cce ss to a q uant um compute r.Itturns  ou t  that  thi s  d oes n 't he lp v e ry much s i nc e y o u  c an prove ex a c t lythe s ame things  toa fully classical verifier. I th inkw h atyou have  i n mind is some thi ng d ifferent :an interact ive proo fw herethe pr over i s limit e d  t o  quant um c omp utation.Thi si s somet hi ng that h as b ee n stud ied in rece n t  years (see forexamp l e  arXi v :08 07.41 54 , arXiv : 08
 =_30;
 _  xVelocity =_xVelocity*-1;

What this_*_means?
If i_remove_this * than_the animation in_drametically changed.
And another thing_that  invalidate()_method_of view class is same as repaint() of java??? 
Any help Would be appericiated.

A:

Multiplication.
xVelocity*-1

Multiply_xVelocity_by -1.
xVelocity-1

Subtract_1_from_xVelocity.

And another thing that invalidate()_method of view class is_same as_repaint() of java?

Yes, invalidate() marks the view as_dirty_and therefore schedules_a redraw.

 Q:

Is the D-Wave architecture a close implementation_of quantum interactive proof?

A very high_level architecture is,_as_mentioned_here, shown in this_picture.

The component on the left is_classical while the one on the_right is the D-Wave box. I understand_that in QIP, Arthur is BQP._Here the classical component is_always in_BQP if we are not_too restrictive. On_the other_hand, the D-Wave_box although don't have unbounded computational_resources is not_violating any law of quantum mechanics._Let's_consider this as_not-so-strong_Merlin.
Can_we say_that this architecture_is_an restricted_implementation_of quantum interactive proof system? My_motivation_for this question is that if we_want to do the_complexity_analysis of the D-Wave_architecture should we model it_as QIP?

A:

This question seems a little_confused. The_class of_decision problems solvable efficiently on a quantum computer is BQP, while_on a classical computer it is_either P or BPP_depending on_exactly_how you define_things._An interactive_proof is something entirely different. It is_a protocol_which allows a prover to prove,_beyond reasonable doubt, the_outcome_of some decision problem, and allows_the prover and verifier to interact._QIP is the class of_interactive_proofs_where the verifier, not the_prover, has access to a quantum_computer. It turns_out that this doesn't help very much_since_you can prove exactly the same_things_to a fully classical verifier. I_think_what_you have in mind is_something different: an interactive proof where_the prover is limited to quantum computation. This is_something that has_been studied in recent years_(see_for_example arXiv:0807.4154, arXiv:08