Page **15** of **16**

### Re: negative transition probability

Posted: **September 20th, 2018, 1:31 am**

by **katastrofa**

Yet another proof that Shakespeare is a hoax: they didn't know atoms in his times.

BTW, did you know that Shakespeare died when he was your age? He wrote one word too many... Carpe diem!

### Re: negative transition probability

Posted: **September 20th, 2018, 4:36 am**

by **Collector**

yes "they" knew atomies in his time, they knew the true A. All the way back to 2500 BC, or according to several sources before that too

### Re: negative transition probability

Posted: **September 20th, 2018, 8:49 am**

by **Cuchulainn**

This thread is silly. For silly, OT is the place to be. The others should be more serious.

At least John Baez says "I have no idea".

### Re: negative transition probability

Posted: **September 20th, 2018, 10:52 am**

by **katastrofa**

It indeed sounds silly when noncognoscenti discuss the intricacies of information theory, but it didn't stop you.

### Re: negative transition probability

Posted: **September 20th, 2018, 11:38 am**

by **Cuchulainn**

It indeed sounds silly when noncognoscenti discuss the intricacies of information theory, but it didn't stop you.

**I know what I don't know**!! It's a mathematical problem. Nobody had defined it but only mathematician seem to have this bugbear.

And I know for a fact when you talk about NP you are confusing it with unstable numerical processes as I mentioned

*ad nauseum. *That's where this silly topic all started.

Please don't try to blind me with high-falutin' smoke screens like Info Theory. I don't do smoke screens.

Over and out.

### Re: negative transition probability

Posted: **September 20th, 2018, 12:59 pm**

by **katastrofa**

OK, no means no.

### Re: negative transition probability

Posted: **September 20th, 2018, 6:37 pm**

by **ISayMoo**

It's "ad nauseam", Mr I-Mansplain-Using-Latin.

### Re: negative transition probability

Posted: **April 9th, 2019, 4:27 pm**

by **Collector**

New way of designing systems against correlated disruptions uses negative probability
"he team's new computational method is widely applicable because it can be used to model and optimize any networked system—for example supply chains, transportation systems, communication networks, electrical grids and more. The method incorporates a virtual system of "supporting stations" to represent the correlated vulnerabilities of infrastructure components in the real world. "

"They described it in a paper published this month in Transportation Research Part B, Methodological, the latest in a series of related papers from recent years.

**One of the keys of their method was incorporating negative probability,** a concept seemingly never before utilized for system design purposes."

"University of Illinois College of Engineering": Until now, systems engineers have struggled with the problem of planning for disaster impacts that are linked by correlation
Planning facility location under generally correlated facility disruptions: Use of supporting stations and quasi-probabilities
Very dangerous engineering-times ahead ?:

"

**using this concept for engineering applications is brand new...**"

### Re: negative transition probability

Posted: **June 20th, 2019, 5:42 pm**

by **Collector**

2019:

exhibits negative probability flux
"momenta exhibits negative probability flux. Here we show that this effect is mathematically equivalent to the appearance of classically forbidden probability flux"

2019: "We also demonstrate that Feynman’s negative “probabilities” provide for a more reliable witness"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6506595/

### Re: negative transition probability

Posted: **June 20th, 2019, 6:18 pm**

by **Cuchulainn**

Stop blaming Feynman all the time

### Re: negative transition probability

Posted: **June 20th, 2019, 6:24 pm**

by **Collector**

Stop blaming Feynman all the time

Paul started it I think! (Dirac)

### Re: negative transition probability

Posted: **June 20th, 2019, 6:33 pm**

by **Cuchulainn**

Stop blaming Feynman all the time

Paul started it I think! (Dirac)

So, we blame Paul (D)?

### Re: negative transition probability

Posted: **June 20th, 2019, 6:55 pm**

by **Collector**

Stop blaming Feynman all the time

Paul started it I think! (Dirac)

So, we blame Paul (D)?

what a Di**c

### Re: negative transition probability

Posted: **June 20th, 2019, 7:41 pm**

by **Cuchulainn**

Paul started it I think! (Dirac)

So, we blame Paul (D)?

what a Di**c

Thread starts to get on the Heavy side? we are losing some continuity, what?

### Re: negative transition probability

Posted: **June 20th, 2019, 7:42 pm**

by **Cuchulainn**

Paul started it I think! (Dirac)

So, we blame Paul (D)?

what a Di**c

Thread starts to get on the Heavy side? we are losing some continuity, what?