Welcome to Sun and Fun and welcome to today's program. Sandy and Joanne Hill have been involved in aviation education for many years. And the Association, the National Association of Flight Instructors, has been in existence for nearly 40 years. What we have in aviation is a very interesting system where we bring young people up, they teach other people and people go on to airlines and do other things. What happens to get lost sometimes is the importance of the professionalism that comes with quality flight instruction. Sandy Hill and Joanne Hill have dedicated many, many years of their lives to bringing the profession, the important profession of flight instruction to the awareness of the people who are actually doing it and the customers who are actually part of that flight instruction routine and quality. Rusty Sacks, the Executive Director of the National Association of Flight Instructors, is one of the first master CFIs and he hails from Vermont. We have three very special people here today to talk about professional CFI for the 21st century. Please welcome Joanne Hill, Sandy Hill and Rusty Sacks. Thank you Kathleen. Good morning everybody and thank you very much for having us today. I'm Sandy Hill, she's Joanne Hill and I'm Rusty Sacks. Can you hear us in the back? She will answer to Sandy, I will not answer to Joanne. And then Rusty Sacks, he answers to all kinds of things. Call me anything you'd like but not late for dinner. Okay we're here this morning or this afternoon to talk to you a little bit about our thoughts as they relate to flight instructor professionalism, particularly in the 21st century. Things have changed a lot and it's an ongoing process, they continue to change. We got to keep up with it as flight instructors, got to keep up with those changes, got to keep up with the new knowledge. So we hope to touch upon some things that you will find interesting, useful and perhaps even humorous from time to time. So we've already been introduced, we can forego that part of the program. A professional CFI, we're going to submit to you some of our thoughts. What constitutes a professional flight instructor? And here is perhaps a profile. The first element of professionalism in instruction is that one must be a good teacher, must have pedagogical skills, must be able to encourage students to learn. We can't ever cram knowledge into a student. All we can do is create a favorable environment for learning. In order to do that one must be able to communicate. Apparently my voice doesn't carry it, I'm sorry for that. One must be able to communicate which means you must speak grammatically, you must speak in complete sentences and you must make sense with what you're saying. And you must speak into the microphone. You must also be a proficient pilot. One of the things that Joanne and I work with a lot, actually the bulk of our responsibility is working with flight instructors to help them become better teachers. We will assume rightly or wrongly that anyone who holds a flight instructor certificate at some point has demonstrated the necessary flying skills to do the job of a flight instructor. But because that individual holds a flight instructor certificate does not necessarily mean that he or she is an educator, a teacher. So we work with flight instructors to help them become better teachers by various and sundry means. So maintain your skills as a pilot, be a proficient pilot, but also keep in mind that that's only half of the problem, half of the program. All right, and another very important aspect of being a good flight instructor is to be a safety advocate. All of us realize that safety should be our number one priority and we need to make more safe pilots when we are training our students and always be a good role model, a good example in whatever behavior we're doing even when we're not instructing, we're just out flying on our own and doing whatever we do. We don't want to ever, ever do something as unsafe because to see if I can do it, so can I. Right, we are the role model. We must also be an ethical service provider, don't you agree? I agree completely and one of the, in addition to subscribing to a code of ethics, being an ethical service provider means treating every other person you deal with in a humane, in a compassionate, and in a friendly fashion. We set the example for other pilots. If you set aside for a moment the academic flight schools, the colleges, the Embry Riddles, the Daniel Websters, the Middle Tennessee's, and set aside the large 141 schools, most flight instruction takes place at small airports where there's one or two CFIs per airport throughout the country and those few people are looked on as the font of all knowledge. These are the people that every pilot around goes to with a question or a problem and must conduct themselves in a way that will inspire people to feel confident that they can ask this instructor anything. You have to be a continuous learner. When you get the flight instructor certificate and the ink is dry, that's not the end of your learning. That really is, I know it's cliche-ish, but that really is the beginning. You never learn anything as well as those things you teach.  All right, here's what I've already touched upon, being a mentor and a role model. And this is not only for other pilots, but for other flight instructors. If you're the more experienced flight instructor, you should be willing to take that young guy or gal aside who maybe is struggling with getting a student past a plateau and make yourself available so that you can be a resource to those people with less experience than you have. I think that's a real responsibility of any professional in any field, and especially in flight instruction. And you're always the role model for all pilots, but for flight instructors also, you should be a role model and a mentor. We'll talk about the master instructor program here in a few minutes, but one of the building blocks, the foundation, literally, of the master instructor program is this mentoring and being a role model. We'll touch upon that a little bit more later on. In the 21st century, as a flight instructor, you've got choices, choices, choices, probably more choices than have ever been available in the world of aviation. Where are you going to instruct? Who are you going to instruct? What are you going to instruct in? Got lots of different choices there, too. And what kind of equipment are you going to use? Well, let's continue with this profile of a flight instructor in the 21st century, but we're going to factor in some of the stuff that is more relevant today than it may have been 10, 12, 15, 20 years ago. Okay, you are, first and foremost, a resource on all the issues that are likely to come up in conversation at the airport. You have to know, as the responsible flight instructor, current state of federal aviation regulations, current state of proposed alterations to federal aviation regulations, you have to know TSA rules. In the last three years, the Transportation Security Administration has been involved in aviation sometimes to the astonishment of the FAA. You're responsible for knowing that, you're responsible for being appropriately trained, not only for security issues at your airport, but for training alien students who may come to you because they wish to enhance their skills and take them back home. An advocate for general aviation, that's probably one of the more important things that a flight instructor can do because we as flight instructors carry the general aviation banner. We've got to be out there waving the flag, letting the community, and I'm not talking about the aviation community here, I'm talking about the community in which you live, waving the flag for general aviation, convincing people that the airport is more than just a noisy place, that there is a reason to have that airport there, good economic reasons to have the airport there. Okay, and then you need to maintain your proficiency in aviation technology. That was easier to do back even 10 years ago. However, now with the advance of all the technology, it seems like a daily basis, you need to be proficient with the new stuff that's out there, because guess what? The people who are going to come and ask you for flight reviews and IPCs and wings sign off, so they're going to be people with this new technology in their airplanes.  But first, your responsibility would be to get that check out and get Cirrus certified before you start teaching someone. Teach yourself and be proficient. Yes, utilizing new methods and materials. In this information age, all kinds of research is being done on virtually a daily basis that give to us, provide to us as aviation educators, new methods and materials. Well, you need to be able to embrace those as a flight instructor, take them, try them, tweak them so that they work for you, and then go out and use them. In order to do that, you have to be aware of where to find materials. You have to be aware of who the suppliers are, of what quality of materials and what materials relate to what sort of technology that you may be exposed to. You also have to be able to market yourself, marketing skills, preparation of things just as simple as your business card, something that will help set your best foot forward as a flight instructor. If you're a flight instructor at a local airport that has one paved and one grass runway in the middle of out in the bush, Kansas, it doesn't help to broadcast yourself as a flight instructor with a picture of a multi-engine jet on your card saying that you're big and too important to deal with the pilots around there. Market yourself so that you will put your foot forward and show your best side to the people most likely to have contact with you. Go ahead. And you got to be computer literate. This is sort of, in 2007, saying you must be computer literate is sort of like saying in 1880, well, if you're going to drive that buggy, you really need a buggy whip. That if you're not computer literate now, you better get a computer, this is not easy to say, toy boat, toy boat, toy boat. You'd better get computer literate real quickly because our generation out there that is under 40, not that any of us here, of course, we do have a couple of people under 40, these people communicate in a completely different way than how we grew up communicating. We used to write letters with a thing called a pen on paper, we would use stamps to translate them. People don't do that now. They email, they text message, they use YouTube and MySpace and they have a completely different environment for communicating from what we're used to. And if we're going to reach those people, we have to go where they read. We have to use their techniques or else we're going to be considered a bunch of old buddy dutties. Yeah, a story that I like to tell, very brief one. One of the flight instructors with whom we worked several years ago, we had a long discussion with this gentleman, happened to be a Floridian. He was probably 70 years old at the time. And I said, Jack, you really do need to learn about computers and get computer literate. You need to get an email address. You need to have internet access. He says, what do I need that for? I got a fax machine. Okay. All right. Some of the things that we need to be proficient with, with regard to the internet and computers and so forth. Yeah, have an email address. Does that mean that you need to get yourself overwhelmed with email? Well, that just kind of seems to happen whether we want it or not. But no, you don't. You just need to have access to the internet and access to an email address. Are you aware of the number of online safety courses that are available out there? We were fortunate yesterday. Joanne and I sat through a presentation by Jim Piles, who is the father of FAA Safety.gov. He is putting together a whole series of internet courses available to pilots in general, not just flight instructors, to help keep us current. So you need to know about those things so that we can then share that information with our students. You need to know what a CD is and what a DVD is, and you need to know the difference. Believe me, there are people out there who don't know the difference. One of them is for rental movies, and the other one is at the bank, right? Right. Aviation websites. I think everybody now has an aviation website. Even individual flight instructors have aviation websites. But know what they are, and more importantly, know how to coach your students so that they can use these websites effectively. Probably the most important from a safety point of view, from a flight instructor's perspective, is FAA Safety.gov. There is a wealth of information that is available there that's yours for the taking. It doesn't cost a dime, but we need to be able to teach our students that this stuff is available. This is how you use it. This is how you access it. I'd like to mention that if anyone is not already registered on FAA Safety.gov, all you have to do is go through that door or go around the building and right out front there they will get you registered and help you go through that process if you haven't done it yet. Yeah, let us digress just a moment. I'll follow up on something that she said. We are at the point now where with regard to aviation safety as it relates to the FAA, you all remember, most of the folks in this audience are old enough to remember receiving the little postcard in the mail telling you that there is going to be a safety seminar at XYZ Hotel in two weeks.  That's the truth. I'm not making that up. That is the truth. Well, they don't operate that way anymore. Virtually all of that notification is now done via the internet and it's done to those people who are registered on spans and Joanne's advice is very important.  It's no big deal and you will receive those kinds of notices as we go along. All right, let's talk a little bit. Or just sign up with them, go on the website, FAAsafety.gov, click on enlist or join or whatever the appropriate box is and just do it online. The virtue of this is that you don't have to do things with pencil and paper. You don't have to have a face interview. You can do it electronically. Right. Let's talk a little bit about Nathie's mission and we'll discuss how the National Association of Flight Instructors as a professional association supports the things that we have just talked about with regard to making a flight instructor a professional aviation educator. All right, Nathie's mission is share them your thoughts on the Nathie mission. Nathie was founded almost 40 years ago by a forward-looking group of flight instructors in the heartland of the United States who realized that flight instructors were neither demonstrating nor treated as, that wasn't grammatical, neither demonstrating professionalism nor treated by the aviation world as professionals. They established Nathie in order to change that. A flight instructor is every vet a professional. A flight instructor is entrusted with people's lives and entrusted with two generations of protecting people's lives. It's very important that they be recognized in such. They be compensated as such and that they relate to the world with professional responsibility. We're going to take a look at a portion of Nathie's mission statement and see how these specific items relate to some of the things that we've talked about to establish and promote a high level of professionalism. We're going to provide the tools. Okay, one of those tools is master instructor accreditation, which we will touch upon again a little bit later, but it is a professional standards program that promotes high standards and recognizes people who meet those high standards. Another one is our website, www.NathieNet.org, which provides a lot of information and is a place to post information, to share and network with other flight instructors across the nation. And that's what it looks like. That's you. Okay. We have a new website that has been added as a service to flight instructors involved with Nathie. The master instructor program that Joanne mentioned a moment ago has a website called NathieMasters.org. We encourage any of you who would like more information about what a master instructor is, what he or she has to do to earn the designation, you know, some of the perks that are associated with it and so forth. Go to www.NathieMasters.org and take a look there. It's a fun website. I went a little too far or a little too fast. That's what that looks like. And you'll see pictures of about 200 people. And I'm sure that everyone in this room would know some of the 200 people who are pictured on there. The National Association of Flight Instructors has a monthly magazine for its members. Nathie Mentor. Mentor is a magazine devoted strictly to aviation educators. It's not for the general public. It's not for general aviation. It's stuff that I shouldn't call it stuff, really should I. Nathie Mentor presents articles and news on subjects that would probably make many private pilots blink like lizards. It just does not oriented toward them. It's oriented toward the educator. E-Mentor is a bi-weekly electronic magazine with generally three or four short articles, teaching tips, and information of interests to the members. We also have on the website a section called Ask the Masters. This is a portion of the website that people can use, flight instructors can use, when you've got a question, a concern, a problem, something that you need help with, something you would like advice about, just kind of a sounding board and you can contact the master instructors. They are all registered on there in various areas of expertise and they have all agreed to mentor any other flight instructor who chooses to go on the website and ask a question. Nathie also provides seminars and training. Some of those would be like this today and we have seminars at Sun and Fun and Air Venture and other places around the country, but you can always count on Sun and Fun and Air Venture. Some of the training we've provided has been some sport pilot when that first started. Rusty was very involved with providing training for new well, DPEs and people wanting to be CFIs or CFIs wanting to transition into the lights forward area. Nathie members are also eligible for professional liability insurance covering them as flight instructors and the insurance policy that we offer our members actually is about the only insurance policy that protects flight instructors for liability that's incurred even if the instructor is not in the aircraft at the time the incident generating liability occurs. Example, if you as a flight instructor sign someone off with a tail dragger endorsement and that person later is involved in an incident, the aircraft is damaged, it's very likely the instructor will be named as a defendant in a claim for damages. Most insurance policies will not cover the instructor in those circumstances because the instructor was not on board the aircraft at the time. Another benefit is that many aviation suppliers see the value of having flight instructors use their products because there's a multiplier effect. The instructor uses a product and many many students see the instructor using that product. Therefore, they offer very favorable discounts to Nathie members for using their products. Yet another Benny? Yes, we're going to talk a little bit about the opportunities that are available to flight instructors primarily through Nathie. We tend and are very proud of the relationship that we are developing with the FAA and with the aviation industry. The partnerships there are growing and growing and growing. We encourage all of our members and flight instructors in general to be involved in these partnerships to help establish these relationships and to go out and share the wealth, the knowledge and so forth with the flying public. Nathie was very involved with the sport pilot initiative. Nathie works closely together with EAA. Nathie is not a part of EAA. Nathie and EAA are partners affiliated by contract but have many similar goals. The sport pilot initiative was instigated and championed by EAA as an organization and Nathie was very helpful in an advisory capacity to EAA. We were involved in consulting with the FAA on the preparation of the questions for the knowledge tests, on defining the elements to be tested in the practical test standards and the like. Nathie tries to consult in a brotherly basis with the FAA because you get more answer with honey than you do with vinegar. Most of you are probably aware of the FITS. This lady here is our resident FITS expert. All right, if you all will notice their FITS stands for FAA Industry Training Standards. FITS has been around for a couple of years but it's an attempt to upgrade the flight training standards and PTSs. FITS is scenario based training as opposed to maneuvers based training. A lot of flight instructors already have incorporated that into their their regimen but this is kind of opening the door to everyone to take part in scenario based training. It's a government FAA plus an industry group who meets together. They have approved several TCOs and training programs now throughout the country at different flight schools and different manufacturers especially with TAA aircraft that have come out. We need a different style of training especially for those since there's so much more to jam into the package and they also are now presently working on redoing syllabus, syllabi and PTSs for all private through CFI practical tests and they will be scenario based and so it's a it's a new concept and a new way of doing things but I think most people would agree it's a good thing, it's a very good thing and we don't have to wait to go through the NPRM process. We're just going to all agree to do this and that's why it's a it's an FAA industry group program. Yeah we encourage involvement in the National Safety Program mentioned that a little earlier but there are many benefits associated with the involvement in the National Safety Program not the least of which is an attempt and we hope a positive attempt to decrease the number of general aviation accidents that's really the foundation of the safety program and its reason for being. We've been spending a lot of time here at Sun and Fun working with the people who are trying to put together the new wings program just as a very brief update for those of you who do not know the new wings program their their projected launch date is the 1st of June. One of the questions that comes up frequently well I am presently involved in the old wings program does that mean that all of that is for not no that is not true even if the program is launched on the 1st of June those of you still involved in the current wings program will have until the end of this calendar year until the last day of December to wrap up any things that you've been doing in the wings program and then you will have until the last day of January of 2008 to get your next wings phase flight training materials. And since that since the old wings program is tapering down there's rumor that that will now be referred to as the winglet program. Flight training what do you want to say about flight training materials? Well actually that sounds like a Walt Shambles joke. Well I think that we've been working with different groups who are producing flight training materials as consulting you know and a lot of master instructors now are producing new materials with the door that's opened with TAA and glass cockpits and things like that. And to provide for the common defense and provide recognition for the contributions to aviation safety education and training of flight instructors. Right one of the goals of NAFI is to recognize flight instructors for the things that they are out there in the field doing. We all know the the ongoing discussion about flight instructor pay and you know all of the issues that are associated with that. But one of the things that a professional association can do and we feel is a large part of professionalism is recognizing the people who are really going above and beyond who are making a difference and so forth. So we're going to touch upon a few of the things few of NAFI's involvements in in those sorts of things. Master instructor accreditation all right give them some of the details. Okay it is a professional standards program which outlines activities that we have defined as defining the master level of professionalism for us for a flight instructor. It includes being an educator that's the biggest chunk but then we also think you should have some pro bono or service type activities that you provide for the aviation community at no charge and things like young eagles and CAP and angel flight things like that. There's another component that deals with media because as a professional educator and teacher you should be putting together materials to use with your students and to share with other instructors. So it those kinds of activities can be nothing more than a new pre solo exam or a new checklist for an airplane that you think is better than the one that was provided all the way up to writing books and articles and newsletters and textbooks and anything like that. The fourth component is being a participant or a student yourself because as we said earlier you should be continually learning and increasing your knowledge base and your skill level yourself. So all of those activities together are defined as meeting professional standards. If you meet those standards it's a renewable two-year program you would earn the master instructor accreditation. There are some perks that go along with that. It might make sense to back up a little bit. You're all probably aware that a flight instructor certificate is valid for two years.  NAFI thought and the Hills were very instrumental in doing this and they're too modest to say it themselves that if a flight instructor is a professional the flight instructor should be treated the same way that a doctor or a lawyer or an architect is treated and should be required to continue education during those two years. Since the FAA doesn't require that NAFI created a program that would recognize that and just as a doctor has to do so many hours of continuing medical education every year or two years or three years a lawyer has to do continuing legal education. The master instructor program was was created to recognize those instructors who do continue learning and teaching and writing about it and participating in making themselves better instructors. Of the 90,000 flight instructors in the United States there are currently 400 and something master instructors. These are the creme de la creme of flight instruction he said modestly. He is one. The perks that go along with it. Well we'll address that in a minute yeah. The National CFI Hall of Fame have any of you ever heard of the National CFI Hall of Fame? It's relatively new. Last 10 years I think we've had a flight instructor hall of fame and some of the most notable of aviation notables have been inducted into the flight instructor hall of fame. I could mention a couple of names I'm sure everyone in this room has probably heard of and many of you may know the late Bill Kirschner Barry Schiff Barry Schiff Evelyn Brian Johnson you're right Evelyn Brian Johnson quite a lady. Well these these folks have been inducted into the National Flight Instructor Hall of Fame. That Hall of Fame is housed in the museum at Air Venture or at EAA in in Oshkosh. There are really some notable people in there and if you folks have ideas of people worthy of induction into the Hall of Fame I would suggest that you go to the NAFFI website take a look at that. There's a you know nomination information and so forth that that's contained there. How about the Jack Akespieler Award? Okay we have a slide that explains it. Well oh that's right we do. Okay so let's then just go to those. Right. All right some of the perks that are associated with master instructor accreditation you may now renew your flight instructor certificate by earning the master instructor designation. If you were to go through the process submit a portfolio it would be evaluated reviewed and so forth and then when you earn the designation you will receive a telephone call actually from us and a part of that telephone call will include the opportunity the option of renewing your CFI just based on on earning the master instructor designation. One relatively new or newer development with the master instructor program most of you in here I'm sure are aware of a gold seal flight instructor certificate. You're probably also aware that at least until recently there was really only one way to earn a gold seal flight instructor certificate and that was to jump through some hoops as either a flight instructor or a DPE. Recently the FAA has added a second option to the gold seal or a second way to earn the gold seal flight instructor certificate. If you hold either an advanced or an instrument ground instructor certificate and you earn the master instructor designation we can then get you a gold seal. That was launched by the FAA about a year ago and we're very happy and pleased with that. We're very proud of that particularly because the the FAA order that governs all certificate issuance and renewals 87.3 alpha bravo something or other. Echo. We're up to echo I think. Names specifically NAFI master instructor program which is the only industry-based program recognized by the FAA in this fashion. So we feel like ground breakers there. One other interesting development is any of you who are involved in a part 141 school as opposed to a part 61 flight school. The 141 schools have chief flight instructors and assistant chief flight instructors. If you're involved in 141 you know that the chiefs and the assistant chiefs have to renew their credentials every year. We have to do it every two years but those involved in 141 on the chief and assistant chief level have to renew their credentials every year. The master instructor designation counts for that renewal. So if you were to earn the designation we would then give you a graduation certificate that would count toward your renewal or count as your renewal as a part 141 chief flight instructor or assistant chief flight instructor. Some of the neat things that go along with the master instructor program you probably well most of you probably recognize the lady on the left some of you may recognize the lady on the right. We have a gathering both at AirVenture and here at Sun and Fun called the Meet the Master's Breakfast. That thing has grown beyond my wildest dreams. At AirVenture for the last four years Marion Blakey the FAA administrator the lady on the left there has joined us for breakfast at the Meet the Master's Breakfast at AirVenture. The lady on the right is Susan Parson who works at AFS 800 that is the general aviation and commercial division of the FAA. Susan is one of the few people who hold both a master CFI accreditation and a master ground instructor accreditation and Marion is presenting Susan with her credentials as a master ground instructor in that picture. Okay Hall of Fame. The Hall of Fame is in Oshkosh Wisconsin as we mentioned to recognize people who have made significant contributions to aviation education. We mentioned before some of the absolute immortals the Barry Shifts and the and the who else were we mentioning Bill Kirchner Bill Kirchner's of aviation education. There are others who have nonetheless made significant contributions and we encourage you to check our website read the criteria and nominate a person you think would be appropriate nominations close in May. Check it out as soon as you get home. Right and remember that this is a way of recognizing flight instructors who are making a huge contribution a significant contribution to aviation education. So you know use the tool that is available there through the Flight Instructor Hall of Fame. The trophy that you see there on the right is the Flight Instructor Hall of Fame trophy and that particular individual I believe is Jack Eggspeeler who is named on that one. Right which leads us to the Jack J. Eggspeeler award. This is in recognition of ongoing commitment to Flight Instructor Professionalism and Quality Aviation Education. We NAVY created this award to recognize industry people, flight instructors, just people who have gone out of their way to to do good things to promote professional flight instruction. This was the 2005 Eggspeeler award winner.  He works at Galvin Flying Services on Boeing Field in Seattle, Washington. And Nick had mentored, there's that word again, mentored 18. 19 now. 19 pardon CFI's through the master instructor program and has a top notch you know flight school at Galvin there if you ever have an opportunity to stop by because it's just the way a flight school ought to be run. Yeah and this picture was also taken at a Meet the Masters Breakfast at Air Venture in 2005.  And then we have the Robert E. Wright Spirit of Instruction award. Presented to aviation educators of every ilk for exceptionally meritorious or heroic aviation actions. Example, last few years there was an incident in some place in the Midwest where in Ohio I think where two flight instructors were out doing approaches maintaining their own proficiency and heard a broadcast on the radio of a young pilot who was clearly depressed, who was threatening suicide, who was going to crash the plane in order to kill himself. One of the instructors in this other aircraft took over the flying responsibility and the other took over the responsibility to communicate. They spoke with this young man, they got him talking, they talked him out of it, they talked him back to the airport where he landed safely and he was greeted and and a life was saved. It was a remarkable exhibition of flight instructors behaving in extraordinary circumstances to do something valuable. A year or so before or after that there was a flight instructor who was also an air traffic controller at Boston Center I think. And a young lady who had a couple of hours of flight instruction was going someplace with her parents. They took off from a field in New Hampshire and her father who was in the captain's seat of a Cherokee or Comanche collapsed and this very low-time, very inexperienced pilot took over the controls, broadcast on the frequency that had happened to be set on and happened to be talking to a CFI who talked to her around, gave her a little bit of instruction, gave her encouragement and got her to land safely the first time she ever landed an airplane. When they landed the airplane and taxied in, her father in the command seat and her mother in the back seat were both deceased. It was an extraordinary act of instruction. That's the Spirit of Flight Instruction Award. This is the individual who received the award for the story that Rusty just told. Ken Hopp, a controller at Boston Center. Actually, we're looking for nominees all the time and if you have some people in mind, if you know of an instance, please let us know. We'd like to recognize those people. Don't hesitate to contact us. Give them a pat on the back. Flight Specialists of the Year award is something that is very near and dear to our three hearts anyway. We work in flight structure headquarters both here at Sun and Fun and at Air Venture, but I would be remiss if I did not say that we couldn't operate that place as successfully as it is operated without the help that we receive from Flight Specialists. Other NAFI members who come in and volunteer their time to work with the flying community. We have a constant stream of people in the flight instructor headquarters with questions. Questions as simple as how do I learn to fly? Questions as complex as how do I become a flight instructor or how do I teach X, Y and Z? These flight specialists come in, spend a lot of their, actually they spend their time and their money working with other aviation educators and aspiring pilots in flight instructor headquarters. Here is a recent recipient of the Flight Specialist of the Year award. Master CFI and he's one of the few individuals who holds both the Master CFI and the Master Ground designation. Ron Galbraith from Longmont, Colorado. Ron is receiving his plaque from me in that picture. On that same subject I'd like to add that this year at Air Venture we're going to have a learn to fly center where we need help from instructors to come run that in the membership village area and we also have my first log book which is a simulator lesson and a real live authentic endorsement in a log book from a flight instructor for the kids at Kid Venture. General Aviation Awards. Joanne is the chairman of the National General Aviation Awards program a cooperative effort of the FAA and 12 industry organizations. Tell them a little bit about that. Okay every year we recognize the national winners at Air Venture in Oshkosh in July where the administrator comes and presents them with their awards but the process begins down at the local level and actually is it 40 years? What are the awards given for Joanne? Oh I'm sorry okay CFI Flight Instructor of the Year CFI. AMT is Aviation Maintenance Technician. Avionics Technician and it used to be aviation safety counselor now called fast team representative of the year. So these four people are given a national award at Air Venture but the process starts down at your local area in your fizz-dose and the fizz-dose select their four awardees hopefully and then they move on to the regional and they're in I think eight now eight regions of the country that all the fizz-dose are part of so then we have regional winners and actually tonight the southern region general aviation award winners are going to receive their awards tonight at banquet here at Sun and Fun and it's going to be a first time first annual regional award banquet or you know some gathering but after the regional winners are announced they go on to a national judging of their peers or by their peers and when the national winners are announced in March then all kinds of hopefully good things happen for them they get recognized at several different venues but the big one is in Air Venture in July. Now the administrator comes to that and presents the awards to the four national winners at Air Venture in a very nice setting it's called theater in the woods for those of you who have been to Air Venture and are familiar with that area they are brought up on the stage we put together a little video vignette of their lives in an aviation and the administrator presents them with their plaque and we play this little video vignette which is kind of fun this is this year's national CFI of the year gentlemen by the name of Mike Gaffney who is with the St. Louis well he works with the St. Louis fizz-dough and has a flight school in the St. Louis area okay well at this point let's open it up for a couple of questions and then I just got two more slides I need to share with you anybody have any questions yes sir yes one of the other okay hi all right I would like to ask a question about what you think the FAA's posturing is for the flight instructors at this point with the way the fast team reps are being set up the new program now for wings how much more involvement are the flight instructors asked being asked to step up for here sounds like we're going to be judging people on practical test standards and getting us back into maybe another realm of this whole thing just curious about your comments one might look on the new wings program as the flight instructors relief act of 2007 in that it is going to provide a great deal more time for paid instruction by rated pilots and the flight instructors will be judging experienced pilots on practical test standards rather than merely judging students seeking ratings on practical test standards there's nothing new that's being demanded the of the instructor there's no new skill there's no new talent there's no new new system of screening that's being presented to flight instructors there are new opportunities for instruction that are out there right does that answer your question okay anybody else well thank you very much yes and I I don't want you to forget that next Wednesday is take your kid to work day so don't forget about that that would be the 25th of April right thank you very much for joining us today hope you got a little bit out of it I also have activity completion forms they're called to document that you attended the seminar today if you wish to use them for working towards a master cfi or master ground instructor accreditation yes this is your documentation that you were here today right so thank you very much yes thank you


Daj. Čakaj razovitaj za občasno. I ja sem očin, da sem lačen. Vzlušo, da sem bilo način, da njah napravil, da so počujem, da bi se našliče, da se je najlepšina, da se težave izgleda, da se zelo počujem. Ko sem počujem, da se zelo počujem, da se zelo počujem. Zgledaj so, da sem početila to nam. So, ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Na vsečenem spomenu je decidevno automata. Spečno je teorija komputera komputera. Očiloziej posobiločno napravile. Even though it's very formal, I mean for a physicist, it's a little bit orthogonal to the way of thinking that we have been, has been given to us while we were growing up in college. But it's very useful because more than probably, even other more concrete branches of mathematics allows you to really think about the logic behind the whole thing. And so why did I get interested in this theory of computation? Well, I mean, there are several reasons for that. Of course, coming from physics, it was very appealing to me the practical implications. Practical implications of understanding whether something is computable or not is essentially how difficult it is to make a computation. It tells you a lot about the physics of the problem. So for example, when we do Monte Carlo simulations in physics, there are some problems which are inherently easier than others. You write the same algorithm, same Monte Carlo code. You run it on a ferromagnet, and it runs smooth, and you get numbers out, you can do financial scaling, so on and so forth. Then you take the same code, you run it to find the properties of spin glasses, and the same code stumbles. And you ask yourself, why is that? Is there a deep reason for this to be true? Is it just by chance? Can I write a better code? Can I ever hope to write a code that works for spin glasses, as well as my five line codes of Monte Carlo works for ferromagnets? And when you start thinking deeply about this kind of questions, you end up thinking about computer science. And you realize that there is a lot about computer science that is about physics, and not only mathematics. It's going on in a physical object. And the same thing if you try to do, you know, you want to understand the physical properties of a quantum system, then forget about the Monte Carlo code. Sometimes we can write a quantum Monte Carlo code. For some problems, you cannot even write a quantum Monte Carlo code. And you ask yourself, how does nature solve this, right? Is there inherently something more powerful in quantum mechanics that there is in classical computers? Can we use this? And the other motivation that led me to work on this thing is that sometimes when you try to understand what you can do with the physical systems, this brings importance to the system itself. For example, topological quantum memories brought a lot of attention to topology, implications of topology for condensed matter, for example. And this is an interesting topic. I mean, the Nobel Prize was given two years ago about this. So thinking deeply about this question, these questions are questions about nature. They're not questions about how our brain works, but that's also a question about nature. But these are really questions about things which happen in real objects. So it's as much a question about physics as it is about math. OK, so much for an introduction. I think I spent enough. So first of all, so what does it mean? We're not going to go through all of this. These are my notes for the class that I was teaching in SISA until last year, actually, about quantum computation. So I'm only taking some.  If you are interested, I can give you notes to read and things to teach. And so since the audience is very broad, although I targeted this a little bit towards mathematicians, if you have questions in general about what I'm saying, you can just. So the first thing I want to do is to give you a precise idea of what it means to do a computation. And the simplest computation is that which answers either yes or no. OK, so you're given a problem. Here you ask whether this problem has a yes or no answer. There are computational models. Computational models become, sometimes they are simple and they become more complex until we reach to what we think is the most universal computational model that we have that is the Turing machine. But the simple computational model that you should have in mind is, for example, it's called the finite automaton. So in the finite automaton we have a set of states. We have an alphabet. Usually this is just a Boolean alphabet. And we have a transition function, a function which takes a letter in an alphabet. The state the automaton is, and then makes the automaton go to another state. The idea is that there is a register. I read the register 0, 1, depending on whether I read 0 or 1. And depending on the state which the automaton is, I do something else. And then there is a special state. There is an initial state, q0. And there are some, there is a subset of states, but you can even think of one of them, which are called accepted states. So if at the end of the computation my automaton is one of the accepted states, my string is accepted. It's said to be part of the language of the automaton. All right. So let me give you a quick example. For example, the machine M2 is made of two states, the Boolean alphabet, the transition function that I will now specify, q0 is equal to q1. And the set of final state is just q2. Now the transition function delta, depending on what it reads, and depending on the state you are, goes to, all right. So now you have the machine and I have to run it on a string. So for example, let's run it on the string x, which is 1, 1, 0, 1. So what do I do? So this is the idea. So I read 1 and I go to q2. I read 1 and I go to q2. It depends on where I was, right? So I read 1 and then I go to q2. I read 1 and I go to q2. I read 0 and I go to q1. I read 1 and I go to q2. The computation ends and I finish in q2. q2 is an accepted state, so my string is accepted. So x is in l of m2. This is the idea of what the computation is for an automata. All right. Yes. Yes. The initial state is in this case is not important because it does always the same. In general, it is. So this machine, what does this machine do? Well, simply, I mean, look at this. I mean, it's simple. If the last digit is 1, it's going to be accepted, the string. Otherwise, no. So the language l of m2 is the language of all the bit strings, which end with 1.  So language is a subset, is a set of bit strings. Is a subset of the set of all strings, if you want. And a language is called regular if there is a finite automaton which decides it. So the language of bit strings which end with 1 is a regular language. This is a useful definition because it does not encompass all of the languages, which means that not all the things that we think we can do with algorithms are just finite automata. OK. So this actually, there is something interesting. This was just to give you an idea of what the computation is. What doing a computation means. There are more complicated models of computation. One of these is particularly important. It's called a push-down automaton. It's called PDA. These are called FA, finite automaton. PDA is exactly the same thing, except that in addition it has an extra memory on which it can push bits and extract just the last bit. Push and extract, push and extract, push and extract. So which languages can be decided by push-down automaton? Clearly all the regular languages plus more. And these more are called context-free languages. And these are important. They were invented by Noam Chomsky. And they are important because human language is a context-free language. So studying context-free languages allows you to parse. I mean, when you have a sentence and you want to parse a sentence, say, OK, this is the verb. This is the subject. This is the object. The object can be itself a sentence. I like doing this sentence. So the object is itself a sentence. So PDA decide context-free languages. And these are very, very important in linguistics. And it's the reason why Noam Chomsky is, I think, the second most cited author in the world. Because this generated a lot of things. It's not only a political activist. He was actually a very good linguist from studying these things. OK. So by the way, finite automata, when you go to the supermarket and there are sliding doors, what's deciding whether it has to open the door or not? There is not just a simple set. There is a little circuit. Because you want to open the door. But if you are on the other side, it has to close. So that can be done with a finite automata. You don't need the full power of a Turing machine to decide whether to open the door. You are entering or you are exiting. OK. So no, the set of states will always be finite. The alphabet will always be finite. And in fact, the most general alphabet you can choose is the Boolean alphabet. OK. You can reduce everything, which is, if you have three states, you cannot decide more languages than if you have two states. It's finite in the sense that it doesn't have a memory. Turing machine has something which is infinite. And now I'll tell you. It's the memory of the Turing machine is infinite. OK. With the PDA, there is an extra set here, which is the register. And the transition function has an extra slot that tells, if you read this, you are in this state, then write this on the register. That's predetermined. Everything is predetermined. This is an algorithm. OK. You give the algorithm before giving the input. That's the idea. You give the algorithm something, you put the input and you see how the algorithm runs on the input. Just like what I said before, I write my Monte Carlo routine. I run it on a ferromagnet and I find the critical exponents for physics, the critical exponents to three digits. Great. The same algorithm I put as an input the Hamiltonian of a spin glass, it doesn't converge. It takes forever to converge. Why? All right. Now, let's look at another model of computation, which is the Turing machine. OK. So we have the alphabet. Well, here there is a slight distinction because there is one set that we want to be only part of the, so there is an alphabet and there is an external alphabet. OK. Why is this? Because we want a blank symbol. The blank symbol is an element of the alphabet. Oh, s. The blank symbol is an element of the alphabet, but we don't want the input to contain the blank symbol. It's a technical requirement. So, for example, the external alphabet a can be the Boolean 01. OK. Within the set of states, there are two states now, which are called halting states. Q accept and Q reject are elements of the set of states q. And the transition function, it's more complicated. OK. Goes from the set of the alphabet, the set of states, tens of the alphabet in set of states alphabet and then one of these things, minus one, zero plus one. What does it mean? I'll tell you in a second. And then there is a tape. The tape is a function from n to the set of states, meaning that I have a tape. Really, you have to think about the tape, infinite. OK. Your machine has a pointer, which points to a position on this tape, and has an internal state. Depending on the internal state and what it reads here, it changes the internal state, moves left, right or stays put, and then writes something else. So the difference with the automaton is that the tuning machine can actually write on the tape. Now, tuning was... So tuning did this work before actually the computers were built. So what did he have in mind? He had in mind a person doing a calculation which requires a lot of imagination. So, for example, in the 30s, in the 20s, in the 30s, people needed to do integrals, like we do now. Now, we're going on a computer and we write integrate open square bracket or n integrate open square bracket and we get a number. Back then, they had a function, and there were small sections of the departments of physics and math in which you would go and say, look, I need this integral. And the person in charge would take it, say, okay, come back on Saturday. And so you go home and in the meanwhile, the person says, okay, now let's see. What do I do? So let's use this algorithm to do this integral or let's do these other algorithms, bi-section, stuff like that. And follow the algorithm, wrote down number by number, summed all the numbers and got an answer. The professor will come after three days, get the number. And, okay, so what Turing had in mind was this person, which was the person in charge so what Turing had in mind was this person, which was doing the calculation. He has a notebook. He or she has a notebook. And Bryce, the notebook, can erase on the notebook depending on what's written on the notebook, can decide to flip page back or front to stay on the same page. And there is an internal state in his brain, his or her brain that says, okay, if I read this symbol, do this. Good. So the tape can be changed. No, but only at the last point. Only one. Yes. Okay, so this is the definition of the Turing machine. So you have to imagine this thing that moves, takes a register, and writes on the register, and so on. So what can such a Turing machine do? I mean, I'm not asking which languages can it decide. But what are the possibilities? So the possibilities are two, essentially. Other machine stops because during the computation, at a certain point, it enters one of the halting states. Oh, this didn't tell you, sorry. If at any point in the computation, the Turing machine enters one of these states, it exits the computation. The states are in the definition of the Turing machine. The Turing machine is the algorithm. So this is maybe difficult to digest a little bit. And in fact, it's called the Church Turing thesis. The Church Turing thesis is every algorithm is a Turing machine. Now, this is somehow the definition of algorithm, if you want. Because when I talk to you, and I say, oh, I have an algorithm to find the 100 digit of pi. And I tell you the algorithm.  Find an arbitrary digit of pi, and this will run in two steps. You start thinking, well, actually this is not really an algorithm. It's not what they have in mind as a notion of algorithm. An algorithm is a certain sequence of steps. You can go back. You can do this thing. You can change it internally. So the Turing machine is the best way we came up so far to systematize our concept of algorithm. And also, this doesn't change in quantum mechanics, by the way. Turing machines also play an important role in quantum system. I have an alpha now. Yes, yes, yes. Still at the beginning. OK, now. Good. Turing machine loops, if it never enters during the computation, one of the altering states. If a language is decided by a Turing machine, if for every string in the language, the Turing machine will stop. On every string of the language. So decidable languages can be written as the union of yes and no answers, which do not overlap. And if x is in a yes, then I feed it into the Turing machine and at a certain point, I'm guaranteed that it will enter. The Turing machine will enter an altering state except. If I pick a string in a no, the Turing machine is guaranteed to stop and in reject. Are all languages decidable? The answer is no. So are all tasks algorithmic? No. If I say it like that, it sounds a bit more intuitive. For example, there are several nice examples. The example that is given always is the altering problem itself. Deciding, so deciding whether a Turing machine on a given input will stop or loop forever is not decidable. Altering is the problem in which a bit string consists of a bitwise description of a Turing machine and an input. And x will be in a yes if the Turing machine will stop on the input, x will be in a no if the Turing machine will loop forever on the input. This is a way to show that this altering problem is not decidable, is Kantor's Diagonal Argument, which is the same thing that you use to prove that there are more real numbers than natural numbers. There are more languages than Turing machines because a language is a power set. A Turing machine is just a string. It's an algorithm. It means a string. It's on your hard drive. It's on your hard drive. It's just an integer number. But there is something very interesting. There is an altering problem, which I like a lot in it's Hilbert's 10th problem. Hilbert's 10th problem is the following. I give you a polynomial of a certain degree in two variables, x and y. And I ask you whether this polynomial has a root, which is an integer. I mean, x and y are integers. Is there an algorithm to solve for this problem? This is where came in the 60s by Davis Putnam, Robinson, and Matiasiewicz, which proved that this problem is not decidable. There is no algorithm that, given as input a polynomial with integer coefficients, tells you whether there is a root, which is an integer or not. This is very surprising because if you ask the same question in a polynomial in a single variable, the answer is yes. And even I can give you an algorithm. First of all, if you have a polynomial, by looking at the coefficient, you can tell where all the roots are going to be. There is an interval, you know, by looking at the coefficient, comparing the coefficient of the largest power with the coefficient with the less power, you can say, I know that all the roots of this polynomial are going to be in this interval, x1 and x2. And then I test all the integers in this interval and I see if the polynomial is zero or not. So this is not only decidable, but it's also easy to decide. But now I go to two variables and the problem suddenly doesn't have an algorithmic solution. From my point of view, this means that there is no way of bounding the region in which the roots of a polynomial of two variables are. This can be an unbounded region because it can have things like x2 minus y2. So there can be a big region, infint region, and the algorithm test all the numbers in that region doesn't work because it's not guaranteed to halt. OK. So there are some problems which are decidable, some problems which are not decidable. OK. Amongst the problems which are decidable, there are problems which are easy and problems which are not easy. This brings me to to what I was saying before about trying to compute things for a spin glass, trying to compute things for a ferromagnet. Compute things I mean, compute correlation function of spins, compute whatever, the average energy, compute more complicated things. And these, what simple and non-simple, if you want easy to solve and difficult to solve, if you want to formalize this notion, you are led to define what are called complexity classes. Complexity classes are classes of languages. So given a language, if the strings which are in the language can be infinitely large, I mean, unboundedly large, shouldn't say infinitely large, then you can ask how difficult is it to solve a problem for a large and larger string. And for example, if x as size n meaning that this is a bit string with n bits, then how long assuming that the language is decidable, how long does the tuning machine take to enter the accept or reject state. So if it takes something like a polynomial time, so if the time, the number of steps that the machine takes to decide this problem grows like n squared, actually should put this order n squared, I mean doesn't really have to be n squared, can be 3 n squared, it's the order. So this problem is called, it's said to be in P. This language is in P. P is a class of languages. And all at the same, if there is some alpha such that the time that takes to solve the problem of the input size n is n to the alpha, then this language is in P. Are all languages in P? We don't know. This is one of the million dollar prices, if there is anything outside P. So what do we define? How do we define something beyond P? Well the simplest definition is problems for which a purported solution can be checked in time polynomial. So, given an x, I am presented with a certificate, which also has size, let's say less than n, and I have a machine called a verifier which takes x and c, and if x is in L, yes, and there exists a c such that this spits out one, if x is in L, no, then for every attempted solution the machine gives no and runs in polynomial time. This is the intuition that verifying a problem, verifying the solution of a problem is simpler than solving the problem itself. Sometimes. Sometimes maybe not. But in this case, if the class of problems for which I can give you a solution and you can verify whether the solution is correct, or whatever you give me, I am going to verify that this is going to give me no, then this class is called NP, and clearly, P is contained in NP because if I can solve the problem in polynomial time, I just have to ignore the certificate. It's like when you go to somebody very good and tell him, look, I have this result, these are my notes, and it takes your notes, but it's like this. Yeah, your result is correct without looking at your notes. So, it's, Onsager was supposed to do this. So, when people say, oh, yeah, I have this result. I never published much. So, I said, oh, look, I have these results. These are my notes. Oh, don't give me your notes. Just tell me your results. There is all that. You say, yeah, that's correct. So, P is in NP. The N stands not for non-polynomial, but for non-deterministic polynomial. But I cannot explain. I mean, this is the definition. So, there is a million dollar question whether there is a problem in NP, which is not in P, or vice versa, whether P is equal to NP. We still don't know this. We don't know if it is actually, with this definition, easier, strictly speaking, easier verifying problems that aren't solving them. We don't, and this is actually... You also say that there are problems which are known to be decidable, but we don't know if they are in NP or not. NP is not the end of the story. There are bigger classes. And there are problems which are not even known if they are in NP. So, either... If I'm not mistaken, I remember that there is a hierarchy of classes. There is hierarchy. And we at least know that the innermost class is not equal to the output. No, we don't know that. Because if you can collapse at any level, the polynomial hierarchy will collapse. And perhaps if it was a subclass of... Probably a subclass of... No, but yeah, I mean, logarithmic problem can be solved by deterministic finite automata. But any problem in N squared, I mean, there are problems in N cubed which are not in N squared. And these are very easy to check, to cook up. Halting. Halting in which you restrict your running time of your machine to time to the 2.5. This can be solved in time and cubed, but not in time and square. Because it could be solved in time and square means that it doesn't really matter the restriction of the running time of the machine, then you could solve the halting problem. So, these classes N2, N3, N4 are disjunct. They are disjunct. We know there are more problems in this class N cubed than the running class in square. But whether there are more problems in Np than in P, we don't know. So, for example, which problem is in Np? But there are... Let me give you an example which is subset sum. Subset sum is the following. Subset of integers a1, an. And I want to know if there is a subset s prime contained in s, such that when a sum over the ai contained in s prime, I end the target t and I get a target value. So, these are a set of numbers. I don't know, like 1, 3, 4, 5, 37, 43. And then I give you a target, 157. And I ask you, is there a subset of this? It's called subset sum. Is there a subset of s, such that sums to this target value? This problem is very easy to check, right? Just give me, the certificate is just the set. And I can verify in polynomial time sum in golden numbers that you gave me, actually. And also it's impossible to fool me because if you give me, if there is no such subset, then you give me a purported subset. It's easy for me to check that the sum is not the target. But we don't know of any algorithm which solves this problem in time polynomial in N. We don't know. So, subset sum is in NP. And probably, probably, is not in NP. Yes, it's NP complete. That's why we think it's probably not in NP. So, this actually is a very important notion. NP complete problems are problems for which if you have a polynomial algorithm to solve that problem, you can use that polynomial algorithm as a subroutine to solve all NP problems in polynomial time. So, they are the most difficult problems. OK. It's very hot here. Much better if I stay here. If I move. All right. Now, good. What about quantum computing? OK, 50 minutes. What about quantum computing? A tuning machine can also be written as a circuit. A circuit is a set of gates. OK. There are AND gates. There are NOT gates. You take a, let's do this. NOT this, then NOT this, and then these and these together. AND. And then there is, you know, this and this one. They go into OR. AND. And then they both go into an AND. I don't know. Something like this. OK. So, you put an input, and you get an output. The output can be a bit, single bit, 0, 1, or can be many bits. In that case, the circuit is doing a computation. These are circuits like the CPU is in our computer. They do computation. You put in 64 bits, you get 64 bits. OK. Good. By the way, deciding whether a circuit on a given input is going to give you a yes or no is an NP-complete problem. OK. This is called circuit SAT. Is there an input such that the circuit is going to give you 1 or for every input, the circuit is going to give you 0? This is a difficult problem, NP-complete problem. It's called circuit SAT. Now, good. So, no, no, no, they're not... OK. So, a circuit is equivalent. So, a circuit SAT is a decidable problem. So, it's guaranteed, your tuning machine, your algorithm is guaranteed to end. So, it's not... You see what I mean. Otherwise, you have to have... Because these are... Circuits are directed graphs. You can only go one way. And you always get closer to the end. So, there is no possibilities. So, on the side of... On NP problems, you can write any NP problem for tuning machine as a circuit to decide whether this circuit will give you 1 or 0. These are very complicated problems. So, for example, when people do engineering of circuits at IBM, for example, they have to solve these kind of problems in, you know, to see whether some input can actually... can actually make your computation unstable, because there are... There are many levels of things that you want to check during a real computation on a real circuit. And these are the kind of problems that these people have to solve, which we know that they are NP-complete. OK. What is a quantum circuit? Now, what is quantum computation? So, there is a way of introducing quantum computation, which is based on quantum tuning machines, but that's very old and nobody uses it anymore. Because there is an equivalent definition of quantum computation, in which you only use circuits with gates. And what is a quantum computation? Quantum computation is the following. It's a circuit, OK? It's a circuit in which you can have things like this. Two qubit gates, one qubit gates, controlled gates. There is a big... There is a difference, apparently. So, this is, you know, this is gate u1, this is gate u2, this is gate u3. And there is gate u4 here. And the idea is that you take an input state, OK, which gives you a state, initial state psi 0, which is the product, x1, tensor x2, tensor yada-yada, tensor xn. You apply a set of gates on psi 0 and you get the output. The output is a quantum state. We don't want a quantum state. We want a yes, no answer. So what do we do? We take one of these bits here and we measure it. We measure and we get either 0 or 1. And we get a probability to get 1, for example, and probability 1 minus p to get 0. So the answer to your computation is with probability p1, with probability 1 minus p0. So in the end we are going to have a thing here. So we measure, we take psi and we measure the first bit, let's say. We measure so the probability is the expectation value of a projector. So let's say the following. Let's take this operator, sigma z. Sigma z is 1 on the state 0 and minus 1 on the state 1. And then I measure sigma z of the bit 1. How is this related to this?  So I have to do this. So when I measure, either 0 or 1. In a lab I get either 0 or 1 and I don't get half of 0. But if I do it many, many times then I can estimate this probability p to get 1. Now if, now, what is the answer? The answer is 1 if you get 1 with the probability which is significantly larger than 1 half. Let's say two thirds. Zero otherwise. This is how you do a quantum computation. It doesn't sound much. I know. It also doesn't sound all the strange things that people claim that quantum computation can do. But one has to go and look at the details. So a quantum algorithm is a set of gates and the answer of my algorithm run on a given input is this probability p to get 1. So the analog of the class p is the class bqp bounded error of quantum polynomial. So where is the length of the algorithm? Is the number of gates that they have to apply. There are various measures either the number of gates or the depth. The longest circuit that you can make here. So for example the depth here would be for example 1, 2, 3, 4. Depth 4. These cases. So there are various measures of the depth. Yes. Of course it's probabilistic. Actually I should say that I should have introduced bpp which is the analog randomized class in classical computations but I can't. So the issue is that there are probabilities in quantum mechanics. There is nothing you can do about it. So you're never going to have if you define a class by an algorithm is going to give you 1 or 0 then there is no problem in this class. No languages in this class. But if the answer is did you get 1? So yes you run your algorithm and the probability so the probability that the this thing here that the first bit is up is 1, let's say is larger equal to 2 thirds and the probability and it's in a no if the probability of the first bit being 1 is less than 1 third. I write the input as a quantum state I run the quantum algorithm and then I measure one bit. Yes. So since you have to guarantee that this is not an infinite loop you simply have to envelope this. Oh no, no, no, no. That's not because at the output here if you feed this into another quantum machine which can be even the same machine this is an entangled state it's not of this form. So it's not that you can just it's not running two times on this input. You see what I mean? It's not in a classical machine that will be the same. I can rerun the same algorithm many times, but here I would get something different. I run, I mean this is a unitary I run the unitary square. This is a unitary transformation it's a product of unitary transformations they conserve probability and if I run it twice but a circuit cannot have an infinite loop cannot have a loop it must be a directed graph there must be a direction in which I am going so there must be no loops otherwise I end up into the undecidable. Okay, good. So let me give you to finish let me give you one example So far it seems like you could make things worse? Yeah, exactly. It seems like we have done things worse. We have made things worse. However, clearly P is contained in BQP. Okay. Why? Because these things can just be classical gates. Now the only thing that I have to do usually the classical gates to think about they don't conserve the number of bits, for example hand as two in and one out. This cannot be done in quantum mechanics because you cannot destroy Q bits. You lose probability. For every circuit like this if you enlarge the space there is an invertible circuit which does the same computation. Yeah. No, you always initialize with the product state because you want a string in a language and there is a one-to-one correspondence only between string and product states because the inverse space is a continuum as a vector space, right? So there is a one-to-one correspondence between bit strings and bases of this vector space. But if you don't like initializing like that, then you initialize whatever gates you want for example, one thing that you can do, it's very useful in many algorithms is you want to generate let's suppose you want to generate the state psi which is the completely uniform superposition of all the bit strings. How do we do? This seems like crazy thing to do, right? It's completely uniform superposition. It's actually very easy because this can be written as the tensor product. This is actually a product state. I mean if you take this and you take the tensor sorry, to the n. If you take the tensor product in times of this you get this. By the way, this is not true if you change your phase here. If you change your phase, this is typically not a product state anymore it's a very integral state. So how do you do this? Well, you just apply this h is the Adamard gate. So you initialize with zero state you apply the Adamard gates independently of every spin and you get this. So this actually gives me an easy counter example to when people claim oh well, quantum mechanics is like doing calculations in parallel, no? You don't gain anything when you do calculations in parallel over 2 to the n input. Suppose we do this and suppose we want to find whether there is so let's take a gate which computes a function and then spits out something but the only interesting thing for me the outcome of the computation is the first bit. Suppose our question is would such that this function is equal to one or for every input this function will be equal to zero.  Yeah, but they come with a weight one over two to the n. So if there is one state for which f will give me one and all the others will give me zero when I go and measure I have to do order 2 to the n measures in my lab to estimate whether this actually can be one for some x or not but 2 to the n measures is exactly what you would do classically by throwing at random bit strings into a function f and computing f of x. So if this is my problem and this is an n bit string and then I have to find whether this is true or not then if I don't have any information about f of x then I have to just run. So this is not the so it's not true that quantum computers do calculations in parallel. If the efficient quantum algorithms that we have they always use interference here there is no interference how can this they always use interference ok do I have time to give one short example I think I have exhausted everybody let's say 5 minutes ok no more where is Grover ah there it is ok so there are a couple of algorithms for which we know I mean for one for this one I'm gonna show you we actually know that there is no classical algorithm that can do better than this ok and the other one the other ones for example Shor's algorithm we don't know if there is an algorithm which can do factoring in polynomial time in classical setup because factoring is not an NP complete problem factoring is difficult but it's not NP complete by far in fact factoring it's bot in NP and co-NP co-NP means that it's easy to verify also that there is no answer but I don't have time to do this ok so let's assume that we have an oracle function as I said A which takes an input Y and gives 0 and 1 now I want to know this thing here I want to know if there is an X of X is equal to 1 and I want to find what this X is so classically if I don't know what the oracle does that's why I call it oracle I have to call the oracle order 2 to the n times quantum mechanically I have to call the oracle time t which is order square root of 2 to the n and how does this magic works let me so let's if I have this function let's build the unitary which does the following thing it's minus Y if A of Y is equal to 1 and it's Y if A of Y is equal to 0 this is a unitary it's called the oracle once and I can write it by simplicity let's assume that there is a Y let's call it Y0 such that A of Y0 is equal to 1 and my quest is to find Y0 then U is gonna be the identity minus 2 times the projector over Y0 now this gives me the other mark gives me a complete superposition over all the states and if I find the other unitary which is 1 minus 2 times XI this is the reflection in the plane perpendicular to Y0 this is the reflection on the plane perpendicular to XI now if I compose them I get a rotation from Y0 to XI so if I compose them the rotation is a rotation of an angle phi where phi alpha is the angle where phi alpha is the angle the angle between Y0 and XI now in principle this will be difficult so if we knew this angle I would be doing this rotation is easy but we know this angle is a complete superposition over all the strings so irrespective of what this string is the angle is the arc sine of 1 over square root of N ok and that's why actually we get that square root of N there ok anyway so so the idea then so sine of phi alpha is equal to 1 over square root of 2 to the N rotation of phi so let me write it like this e to di phi tau and so if I now do v u so phi this means that phi is 2 times divided by square root of 2 to the N no v u to the pi fourth times square root of 2 to the N is e to di phi alpha tau which takes Y0 and sends it to takes XI and sends it to Y0 ok so v u pi fourth square root of 2 to the N over XI is equal to Y0 plus an error of 1 over square root so this means that if I take this and now I do what you said before I have this u I have this which builds XI then I have u and then I apply this thing square root of 2 to the N times I start with 0 0 0 and I'm guaranteed to exit with Y0 ok you don't know what Y0 is but you can call the oracle you can call the oracle, right? so the oracle is a function which takes an input and says 1 or 0 I don't know I mean somebody gave me this chip I put it in my in my hardware but I cannot look into the chip if I can send to this chip and this chip is quantum mechanically I mean pre-preserved coenance then what you get out you can use it as a subroutine I mean the name of the game is the difficulty of the algorithm is how many times you have to call the oracle and typically I mean in classical with classical computing you have to call the oracle 2 to the N times here you only need to call the oracle 2 to the N times this is called Grover's algorithm and I will stop here ok, so there are two big problems in quantum mechanics in quantum computing practical problem the first is to keep coherence and the second is to keep coherence so the first is to keep coherence in a memory and the second one is to make operations without destroying the coherence so the whole enterprise here is to make if you want it's a technological it's a technological enterprise here I mean we know at the fundamental physics level this should work we should get these things here but building these objects is a nightmare because you want to as you said you want to keep coherence during the computation but also when you do the when you apply the gates you don't want to destroy your wave function there you don't want to make errors in your wave function or entangle with something which you don't control so it's a technological problem it's a big problem so this is actually I wanted to show this to you so I can tell you this so there are two current trends in technology one is using ions in a trap so you have ions in an optical trap and you can engineer this can be in superposition of states the important thing is whether you have something which can be in a superposition of states so ions in a trap can be in a superposition of states so you can manipulate this which are equivalent to applying gates and the second technology which is more condensed matter hard it's superconducting qubits you have superconducting islands and there are various technologies you can do essentially you can make a qubit so in this superconducting islands you can put some charge which is a cooper pair it's made of two electrons and these two electrons can be in a superposition of being there and not being there so using these these two states of a charge we can build a superconducting qubit we can build a qubit and we can make operations on a single qubit two qubits and that's all we need to do universal quantum computation how many there are currently perfectly under control 16 qubits now 16 qubits seems laughable but if you have to simulate a 16 qubit quantum system you need typically to make a number of operations which scales like 2 to the 16 which is what is it 65,000 65,000 about the bristle cone okay these new claims about the bristle cone is the chip that Google is working on which has 72 qubits at the moment they don't have I was Google last week actually and they gave a presentation about where they explained about the problems there are and they claim that they will be able to do a computation on these 72 qubits by the end of the year that cannot be done on the largest classical computer on the earth okay known compute yes I mean 2 to the 72 is really big 2 to the 72 is I don't think there is enough ram on the planet earth to store the wave function 2 to the 72 qubits so you have to store 2 to the 72 double precision numbers and that's a lot so we have trouble simulating 2 to the 40 on clusters so how far are we unclear something will be done with these 72 qubits that cannot be done on classical computer however in order to do everything that we want to do we have to go to orders of magnitudes more than qubits talking thousands millions if we have a system with a million qubit then we can do error correction and we can do arbitrary precision quantum computation which that's another story that's something if you can do that so my idea was to actually give you I think not many of you have actually looked at what the theory machine is before so I really wanted to start from I think I've been too I've been too optimistic about the plan of this lecture by I think a factor of three at least because I mean but I really wanted to tell you what the theory machine is and make you think about quantum computing in terms of how can I do better than a theory machine because you read things on the newspapers which make no sense so they claim it's fast you need to know I mean we are scientists we need to to make a framework where to put the ideas and the theory machine is the framework to compare all the quantum computation yes there was an issue how did they know it's quantum the d-wave no, the brist is completely different d-wave was a different technology it was the adiabatic quantum computation which is something that they haven't done it's a different protocol and it was not clear I mean they had 10,000 qubits 2,000 qubits but I mean they were not just not keeping coherence between more than 7 or 8 of them at the time but still they were claiming speed up with respect to some classical algorithm the current architecture that IBM, Intel and Google are using is completely different they say ok we'll stop at 16 but we'll show you that we can keep coherence on the 16 for as long as the calculation is required we go to 20 we'll show you that this will keep coherence for 20 these 20 qubits for as long as the computation then we go to 30 then we go to 40 then we go to 72 and show you that this will keep coherence in quantum effects up to as long as the calculation is needed it's not let's go to 1,000 and let's see what happens that was useful I have to say being in the community it was useful to get people interested in some sense but nobody thought that it was really a quantum computer really a quantum computer oh, there is a theorem which is actually not even that difficult to prove that adiabatic quantum computation is universal so it's equivalent to the circuit model whatever you can do with the circuit model you can turn it into an adiabatic quantum computation and vice versa yeah, yeah it's a constructive problem yes yeah and make it into an adiabatic quantum computation however the issue is that if you take a circuit which works on 10 qubits with 20 gates you make it into an adiabatic quantum computation of probably 100 qubits and 1,000 gates the parallel is that whatever I can do here but not whatever resources I use here these are the same resources I use here sometimes you have to and actually most of the time in this kind of proofs you have to allow for many, many more resources if you have irreversible computation you can get the same results as reversible computation but you have to enlarge your bit space and it's the same there the circuit model and the adiabatic computation model are the same they are equally powerful but one requires more resources than the other yes