>>7843291 > They said it solves certain problems 100 million times faster than a regular supercomputer. So it's only got a faster calculator ? And thats supposed to revolutionize some shit ? And what certain problems are they ?
>>7843298 It's not about speed but about possibility and the amount of data it can handle.
Your GPS is for example still not really optimal. But a QC could calcualte ALL the possible routes real-time and can help you avoid traffic jams for example.
Weather predicitng is still pretty terrible. QC can handle all the data at once and accurately predict weather. This is not only to help you from getting wet. It can also save lives by accuretly and in time predicting bad weather to warn people against those threats such as tornadoes and cyclones.
It can categorize billions of planet's and stars taken by the telescopes.
It can learn from its mistakes, and better correct it's code. Ie. It's good at machine learning. So expect some good AI to help you find the best porn you are looking for.
>>7843312 Would 10^8 faster make such a great difference for NP problems? The precision ofc increases, but if we double the number of points, that we are able to brute force right now, even with QC the time of computation is insane.
Same with primes. We can just compute way larger RSA keys and be safe again despite sensationalists. All that would do is increase prices in IT security industry.
>>7843336 Honestly I don't completely understand how they work but it's not linear like a normal PC. I there are for example 100^100 combinations of one thing a normal PC would check them one by one really fast, but a QC can check them all at once and instantly give you the answer. It has something to do with superposition if qubits and silly QM. I'll let a real physicists pitch in
>>7843330 They have a fucking enormous experimental budget and they live on keeping all bases covered. The D-wave is a quantum annealing computer though so it's very much harder to work with than a classic programmable computer with a qbit register would be.
>>7843373 Man I don't know dick about maths. It's the mehcanism I'm wondering. Standard computers work by 0&1 and there is no higher signal or anything of the kind. Plus how the hell does it give the correct answer with the highest signal for the computer to figure out ? If it can assign signals to specific values, then it must have already done the calculation, which takes equal amount of time as the standard computers.
It doesn't explain how it is able to make calculations faster.
>>7843384 >It doesn't explain how it is able to make calculations faster. Depends what you mean by "calculation".
Do you mean individual CPU instructions, or do you mean higher-level algorithms?
A quantum computer is actually quite a bit slower than a traditional one when it comes to individual CPU instructions. But it can solve some problems much faster than traditional CPU's because there are very efficient quantum algorithms for them. Basically, each instruction takes 10x as long on the QPU, but the quantum algorithm takes 1/100 as many instructions as the standard algorithm.
>>7843427 >>7843384 Its like P vs NP. Quantum computer can give a "likely" right answer for NP problems. They repeat the quantum calculation, and get the higher signal thing right? Well with NP problems, finding the right answer is slow, but checking the right answer is fast. So qbit finds the maybe right answer and reg PC checks the answer quickly. Qbits are entangled, so they can hold a lot more conventional information, I can't remember exactly how it works, but a few qbits, like a thousand of something, could hold more conventional data than all of the atoms of the universe representing a single 1 or 0.
Quantum computers would open a whole new set of "Quantum algorithms", algorithms which are asymptotically much faster than classical algorithms but can only run on quantum computers. Many of these algorithms are usually NP-Hard or NP-Complete on classical machines, but can be restructured to run in polynomial time on a quantum computer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_algorithm
Quantum computer architecture is completely different from classical computer architecture. Because of this, the models we use for generalizing theorems about computing have to be completely rebuilt from scratch in the case of Quantum computers. If they ever become mainstream, you can expect every field of computer science to explode as new quantum computer scientists start submitting research. I'm very excited for this, but we aren't there yet. The DWave is probably not a real Quantum computer, and there aren't any other candidates out there that have been built which can compete in computing power with current classical machines. It may very well be an impossible mission.
>>7843514 solve this equation with quantum computing please. What is [(1 or 0) + (1 or 0) * (1 or 0)] / (1 or 0). If it was a standard computer that used either 1s or 0s, it would take a fraction of a second. I'd like to see how the quantum computer solves it "faster"
>>7843626 I think you're desperately trying to come up with an explaination for your bullshit and you're avoiding questions. Explain with examples of how qubits are supposed to work, otherwise stop shitposting about things that you have no idea about.
>>7843675 No, because you're not talking in terms of hardware, you're talking in terms of autism. Describe the hardware and how it differs from the standard computers. Describe the way the electrons travel on circuits if it came to that.
For all the people in this thread that have no idea how quantum computing works: 1.) It will give you the right answer, not some distribution of possible answers. If I ask Shor's algorithm to factor a number, I will get the prime factors of the number I fed into Shor's algorithm, not the right answer and occasionally the wrong answer according to some probability distribution. 2.) Quantum computing uses superposition as a sort of massive parallelism. This is why the first step of the majority of quantum computing algorithms are Hadamard gates: it throws everything into a superposition state allowing all possible combinations to be tested simultaneously. 3.) The only reason you wouldn't get the same answer all the time to a non-random algorithm is because of computational error, which is what a lot of people spend a lot of time trying to fix with quantum error correction. Computational error is also not unique to quantum computing, it is just harder to implement corrections successfully than it is in classical computers.
>>7843685 There are several possible quantum bits. The last time I was heavily involved in quantum computing specific research, Josephson junction based superconducting qubits were the big thing. Now, it looks like we are getting into more exotic forms, like braiding Mjorana fermions on semiconductor nanowires embedded in a superconductor (see the Kitaev chain fora toy model). This one is more popular since the quantum information is encoded in the topology of the braids, which makes it less sensitive to environmental noise and closer to the threshold where systematic errors are at the level where current quantum error correction protocols can be successfully employed.
>>7843685 What's the point of discussing "hardware" when you don't even understand the basics. There are many ways to build QC "hardware" and all require advanced knowledge in experimental physics that is way beyond the comprehension of anyone in this board including myself.
>>7843696 Explain to me how the qubit is different from a bit when storing memory. As far as I understand QC entirely relies on the superpositioning of 1s and 0s wheres a PC is set for either 1 or 0. But You can't control the qubit value, you can only measure it and find out what it is. Which doesn't help anyone.
>>7843714 If I have a two level system, I can map it onto what is called the Bloch sphere, and where my state vector points on the surface of this sphere is analogous to the voltage state of a classical bit. By applying the right signals, I can move the systems state vector around on the Bloch sphere. So, in the case of the old Josephson junction qubits, I could apply a small AC signal and manipulate the energy state of the junction. Depending upon how long I applied the signal and at what frequency, I could make specific changes to the state vector.
In the more modern topological scheme, braiding acts to switch the ground state of the system between a handful of degenerate states. Since everything is happening in the ground state, it is more stable than the JJ scheme above since I don't have to worry about excitations tunnelling out of the potential and it is less sensitive to noise because topological rather than geometric features determine the ground state degeneracy and how it evolves upon braiding.
>>7843730 It is still a "real" quantum computer. It is not terribly useful, but it is actually doing a quantum computation. More useful quantum computers are probably not too far off given the current state of the field (and might already exist; who the hell knows what the NSA is up to in its labs)
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.