Philosophy Now Forum

Now they're getting into the architecture:

http://m.phys.org/news/2015-10-scientis ... licon.html

PhilX

What's the nearest intersection (from the corner)?

Quantum computers has existed for a very long time now, just that they are very limited in computing power and disappoints greatly.

I've seen an article say (by rumor) that one exists. Then I've seen articles say they may be built within 5-10 years.

More important than that is what can result from quantum computing.You'd be mistaken if you think it wouldn't affect your personal life. If you think "I wouldn't ever own one of those things, it's too expensive, etc", then think about how the technology of other computers would be affected. And if you don't plan on owning a computer, then think about weather forecasting or nuclear fusion or myriad other things that are related.


PhilX

HexHammer wrote:Quantum computers has existed for a very long time now, just that they are very limited in computing power and disappoints greatly.

Put up a link that shows this.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

HexHammer wrote:Quantum computers has existed for a very long time now, just that they are very limited in computing power and disappoints greatly.

Put up a link that shows this.

PhilX

Google is your friend, the articles are years old.

HexHammer wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

HexHammer wrote:Quantum computers has existed for a very long time now, just that they are very limited in computing power and disappoints greatly.

Put up a link that shows this.

PhilX

Google is your friend, the articles are years old.

Now you're lying and clutching at straws. The article in my OP is dated 10/30/3015. So far you haven't put up a link not any evidence and I know you never will.

PhilX

Blogger and MIT computer scientist Scott Aaronson has written a nice expository article on the subject.

http://www.scottaaronson.com/writings/l ... -draft.pdf

The bottom line is that any problem solvable by a quantum computer is already solvable by a classical computer. The only thing quantum computers can do is offer a time speedup in certain special cases. The most striking example is that a quantum computer can factor an integer in polynomial time; whereas a classical computer requires exponential time. This is Shor's algorithm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shor%27s_algorithm

WTF,

It's not true that any problem solvable by quantum computing will also be solvable by a classical computer.

Check out this TIME article:

http://time.com/5035/9-ways-quantum-com ... verything/

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:WTF,

It's not true that any problem solvable by quantum computing will also be solvable by a classical computer.

Check out this TIME article:

http://time.com/5035/9-ways-quantum-com ... verything/

I'm going to read the article; but if Time magazine says one thing and Scott Aaronson says another ... I'll go with Aaronson.

ps ... LOL I stopped reading when the article turned into a breathless press release for D-Wave. Aaronson regularly debunks D-Wave's bs. They haven't got a quantum computer.

pps ... Ok I read the whole thing. They acknowledged that critics say D-Wave doesn't have a quantum computer at all. Then they give a laundry list of "coulds" without any supporting evidence.

Finally I'd note that this is a philosophy discussion forum. If (big ifs) there were a quantum computer that could work at room temperature outside the laboratory and solve large problems (and we're a LONG way from that) the point I made is still valid. There is no increase in the set of problems that computers can solve. Quantum computers tell us nothing new about the nature of computing that Church, Turing, and Gödel didn't already figure out in the 1930's.

wtf wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:WTF,

It's not true that any problem solvable by quantum computing will also be solvable by a classical computer.

Check out this TIME article:

http://time.com/5035/9-ways-quantum-com ... verything/

I'm going to read the article; but if Time magazine says one thing and Scott Aaronson says another ... I'll go with Aaronson.

ps ... LOL I stopped reading when the article turned into a breathless press release for D-Wave. Aaronson regularly debunks D-Wave's bs. They haven't got a quantum computer.

I'll stick with TIME.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:[
I'll stick with TIME.

So from now on I should assume that you get your worldview from what you read in Time magazine? Are you sure that's the story you want to go with?

wtf wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:[
I'll stick with TIME.

So from now on I should assume that you get your worldview from what you read in Time magazine? Are you sure that's the story you want to go with?

That and all the other articles I read (btw I get my info mainly through Flipboard. With TIME, that came through a Google search).

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote: That and all the other articles I read (btw I get my info mainly through Flipboard. With TIME, that came through a Google search).

If you're interested in quantum computing, you would really get a lot from reading Aaronson's article and also his blog. In general, a thoughtful person these days has to keep in mind the difference between facts and hype.

I thought TIME magazine was once regarded as good journalism. What a crock of shit.

The approach seems to be to just think up nine things computers can do , then say woop, Q computers will be able to do them better!
Quicker maybe - if the speculated developments work - but quicker is quicker not better. You still need to program a computer and that will always be limited by what programmers can do, and their ability to conceive an algorithm to solve a problem.