I don't know shit about physics

>>8395634
Is storing a probability distribution any more efficient than storing some locations?

>>8395687
Sadly I have limited understand of what a probability distribution is to answer that question in a meaningful way. Would/could a probability distribution not be stored as a function? That still sounds more efficient than precise locations, but I still don't know what the fuck I'm talking about.

>>8395699
Well say you're dealing with 5 electrons, 5 locations would just be five sets of coordinates, a probability distribution would be a defined value for every set coordinates in space.

>>8395687
You only need a finite length scale resolution to accurately store a probability representation whereas a true point particle would require a continuous length scale.

>>8395634
>It's akin to how collision detection in video games might draw a really general polygon around a sprite, like a square, waiting for that square to hit another polygon before determining if the precise shape of the sprite has actually collided with another. No point of using more resources than necessary when it makes no difference in terms of outcome.

This is not even how collision detection does.

Complex shapes like sprites are indeed approximated by a rectangle but when one rectangle collides with the other, that is the collision. No one writes code that checks for the rectangle collision and then constructs the actual shape of the sprite to then check the collision. That would be retarded.

Obviously, a rectangle is not always enough but what to game programmers do? They simply use many rectangles and use them for collisions. Like a rectangle for the head, arms, legs and body. All separate and checking for collisions individually.

So you are wrong.

>>8395707
But in your model you have true points when you measure the particles

>>8395719
Not necessarily. Our measurement tools all have finite data resolution as-is so you can't really make that claim.

>>8395716
Even if wrong, my idea doesn't hinge on that notion, I simply used it as an analogy.

Also I don't believe it's wrong at all. There's no one true implementation of collision detection, I'm fairly certain that I described one, I've read about it more than once.

>No one writes code that checks for the rectangle collision and then constructs the actual shape of the sprite to then check the collision. That would be retarded.
What would be retarded about it? It's basically delaying a level of precision until it's contextually relevant.

>>8395763
>There's no one true implementation of collision detection

There is, actually. There is a standard way of doing it and then a bunch of tricks you can choose to implement or not implement depending on how precise you have to be.

>What would be retarded about it?

You are not understanding the implications of actually constructing the shape of a sprite. This would be equivalent to at least making a unit square for every pixel on the 'surface' of your sprite. This is inneficient and useless.

>It's basically delaying a level of precision until it's contextually relevant.

But it is useless.

A head can be approximated with a square and you will not need more precision most of the time. When you do then you divide that square into 2 or more smaller squares that check more specific areas. That is called optimization.

Doing it your way would be the most retarded way, it would be the biggest amount of rectangles needed per body.

Just like to paint a house you do not need to buy enough paint cans to fill the house, to check a collision, you do not need to create as many rectangles to fill the sprite. Some error is okay because it just so happens that computers are not magic logic boxes.

>>8395784
I perceive that you're basically corroborating my general notion but being more pedantic about it in a way that ultimately doesn't matter in the context of the conversation.

There's actually an amusing level of a parallelism going on here given the overall topic of this discussion.

>>8395815
What would be the point of checking if an object is in some region of space and then checking if its in a smaller region contained in the first? If its in the larger region but not the smaller you do nothing because it hasn't actually collided yet. If its in the smaller region then there is no reason to check if its in the larger region first.

I don't give a damn about your """theory""" that's been proposed by thousands of pop-sci fags for years since quantum became a buzzword, its wrong regardless of this analogy.

>>8396039
>I don't give a damn about your """theory"""
I guess you're in the wrong thread then. Enjoy the rest of your day.