User talk:Geek3/Archives/2021

Mach-Zehnder interferometer

Hi Geek3, I just randomly found your work File:Mach-Zehnder photons animation.gif while reading the article en:Photon. It's truly great stuff, congratulations. I included it in en:Double-slit experiment as well. Tercer (talk) 13:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Your categorizings

Hi Geek3, I am sorry to tell you that you made yesterday some nonsense. AFAIK you first tried to categorize to Valid SVG created with VectorFieldPlot code: this is not for manual catorizing, it is done exclusively by templates. In general, it is either useless (when the templates had done it) or it is wrong (when there is no validity and no code). Then you did worse by categorizing to Created with VectorFieldPlot. This is a metacategory that should never contain files! You can use instead the templates where they are not yet used, and when they are used you just double-categorize which is unwanted.
Please, would you undo your action at the 198 files that are now wrong categorized. If you have questions about, just ask me. -- sarang♥사랑 17:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

In fact, I moved the images from another image-set that ‎Watchduck had created to this already existing category. I found that the newly created category was unnecessary, since all VFPt images are already in Created with VectorFieldPlot or some of its subcategories. Actually, I would much prefer to have just one single category instead of splitting according to valid/invalid or code/no-code. The invalid category is empty anyways. When users look at the collection of images, they are usually not interested in those properties and it is cumbersome to walk through all the subcategories. Anyways, I'm reverting the manualy categorization of those images that are already automatically categorized via the template. --Geek3 (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I understand that you want one category containing all these drawings? A better way to have that would be a category e.g. Drawings by User:Geek3, possibly with subcategories as e.g. VFPt drawings by ... and so. This might also avoid that drawings are contained in Category:Photos by User:Geek3 which is an irritating failure. Such a system allows in addition that other images of you, or drawings of other users, can be categorized well and retrievable. How about that, will it be a solution? -- sarang♥사랑 13:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I want one category that contains all these drawings. I also want one category that contains all my work, without a subset being sorted out. The current system is quite good, except that the splitting according to valid/invlid etc. seems a bit irritation to me.--Geek3 (talk) 16:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

There are currently just 3 W3C-invalid VFPt files, they are not from you. Your files are all W3C-valid, 191 with code and 20 with none.

When you want a category e.g. "VFPt files", containing "VFPt files from Geek3" (or any other category name, like drawing, work, or whatsever describes the content, e.g "SVG by User:Geek3") it will be quickly done - just a small change in the templates. Then you have all the currently 211 files, without division by valid/invalid or code. If you want, you select the category name that pleases you, and I can care that it gets the files.

It would be a good idea when the current category "Photos by User:Geek3" and the new one would fit together! -- sarang♥사랑 18:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Orbitals 3D Models

Hi,

I'm a game developer based in Indiana, and right now I'm building an independent game that I want to take place on the orbitals of different atoms (and eventually molecules if the platform takes off and allows that development).

I looked around for some 3D renders and found yours from your Python program, and I wanted to get in touch to ask if there's any way you'd be interested in contributing to this project - I'm not that confident in my Python skills yet, so I'd prefer if you could help. I can't guarantee any sort of payment right now, however if it became available I would be more than happy to repay you for your help.

The first level will definitely use Hydrogen and its orbitals - the rest would use molecules possibly, since those bonds will give a variety of topology, while I'm under the impression that the base elements all use the same orbital structures (and therefore would be redundant levels).

The game is a 3D rotating translation of a Top-Down RTS/Puzzle, so basically I would only need the outer surface area of each orbital - not a probability distribution plot. It doesn't need to be too technically apt - just accurate on the surface and then good enough for aesthetic other than that.

I'm using Unreal Engine to build the game, so the models would have to be in a format usable with that platform - .fbx I believe. I also believe I can convert most other 3D file formats to .fbx if needed, so that's available.

I don't think there are any other requisites, really - just as long as all of the models retain resolution if I choose to resize them.

I hope the project sounds interesting to you - and I would be very happy if you could help!

Just let me know if you need anything, and I'll get back in touch swiftly!

Take care.

Aeon Terra https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Aeon_Terra

Hi, I'm afraid I don't have time for this. However, feel free to make use of the resources I provided. --Geek3 (talk) 12:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
		Thank you for the amazing graphics! Shubhrajit Sadhukhan (talk) 04:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I wonder about the translation of coupling gates

You made this picture:

Both CNOT and ${\sqrt {\mbox{SWAP}}}$ are universal two-qubit gates and can be transformed into each other.

I just want to know, do you have sources for how to translate coupling gates into each other? The mathematics?

I suspect they (the coupling gates) are any multi-qubit gates that can not be written as a tensor product of smaller gates. Have not explored this, and not found any reference, but it feels intuitively like this is so. (example of coupling gates: CNOT, ${\sqrt {SWAP}}$, Toffoli, Ising apparently). The formulas for translating coupling gates into each other probably emerge from the tensor multiplication (or rather, what's missing from it to make it work), or alternatively as solutions to the matrix exponentials?

Thank you for your help! :D 2001:9B1:26FB:C700:F2E2:8CFF:FE35:5907 16:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC) (aka Omnissiahs hierophant)

Hi, I don't know a universal recipe to do this. It's a complicated calculation and trial-and-error. Check out theoretical scientific papers in order to learn more about it. --Geek3 (talk) 07:15, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! ~:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omnissiahs hierophant (talk • contribs) 23:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)