Sun Woo Kim

@sunwoopkim.bsky.social

Theoretical physicist. Student researcher at Google Quantum AI, on leave as a PhD candidate at King's College London. Same handle on 🐦 and 🐘. Personal website: https://sunwoo-kim.github.io

'Solvable' circuits, such as dual-unitaries, have gained attention recently as a paradigm of tractable many-body dynamics. With Friedrich Hübner, we came up with necessary and sufficient conditions for any (1+1)D circuit to be 'influence-solvable'. Happy to hear thoughts! arxiv.org/abs/2606.12538

Influence-solvability: a systematic theory of $(1+1)D$ solvability and its application to brickwork circuits

`Solvable' circuits, such as dual unitaries and its generalisations, have arisen as paradigmatic examples of tractable chaotic non-equilibrium dynamics, both in classical and quantum systems. However,...

arxiv.org

'Solvable' circuits, such as dual-unitaries, have gained attention recently as a paradigm of tractable many-body dynamics. With Friedrich Hübner, we came up with necessary and sufficient conditions for any (1+1)D circuit to be 'influence-solvable'. Happy to hear thoughts! arxiv.org/abs/2606.12538

Influence-solvability: a systematic theory of $(1+1)D$ solvability and its application to brickwork circuits

`Solvable' circuits, such as dual unitaries and its generalisations, have arisen as paradigmatic examples of tractable chaotic non-equilibrium dynamics, both in classical and quantum systems. However,...

arxiv.org

Has anyone else noticed that Norm MacDonald's moth joke sounds just like Crime and Punishment? Only started reading the latter recently and can't stop laughing when reading it, though it's supposed to be serious I assume...

Actually, I think there are infinite, but are all variations of that 7 hex case with a fully connected middle tile. Removing that, not convinced a non-trivial solution configuration exists (eg. swapping a straight line 180 degrees). Would love to be proven wrong! Here's a 9 hex case I found.

Bild

From a pen & paper theorist point of view, I find it much harder to fall into the trap described here, since I find that it *is* the point to understand every detail of the proof (as you say). In contrast, for coding, often I just want a function without understanding every detail and I start vibing

If you have agents who are perfect Bayesians, surely they have a prior and posterior modelling the other agents. But then they have to model that they have a prior and posterior etc... how does one stop the infinite recursion?

If you have agents who are perfect Bayesians, surely they have a prior and posterior modelling the other agents. But then they have to model that they have a prior and posterior etc... how does one stop the infinite recursion?

Hot take: distributions with infinite variance don't really exist in real life. Everything has a cutoff due to system size. Of course, if the system size grows, then the cutoff grows. So in my opinion distributions with infinite variance are really describing a limit.