Why is there no discussion about quantum computers. I have a

File: Krypto_the_Superdog_title_card.jpg (28KB, 250x214px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 250x214px

BUT WILL IT MINE KRYPTO?

>>59273374
Quantum mechanics has been used for donkey's years.

I mean, you know about ETL-JC1, right? Right?

>>59273819
Mtuli core processor shill ignore the question and ask if mutli core just werks

>>59273374
>Why is there no discussion about quantum computers.
Because I just sparked the console discussion on this board, forcing anyone with more than two neurons to leave. I hope you enjoy the rest of the /v/ cattle.

More importantly we need another gaming thread

File: 1458771204576.jpg (230KB, 458x660px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 458x660px

>>59273374
Quantum computing doesn't exist. Look at the current definition:

Blasting microwaves at wires to set a value then read that value is. Pic related from early computer memory.

Onto what would be considered quantum computing, let's first tackle creating atoms inside of a chamber through chemical or electrochemical process then reading what that atom is, what chemical we've created, before we go onto creating or modifying something that we don't know exists (That is indeed what is implied for quantum bits to exist) - telling the media it's magical and faster, and then basically ending it there with no proof of hardware is a kickstarter move.

>>59273374
>Why is there no discussion about quantum computers.
Because quantum computers are the most innacurately reported technology out there. There might be a few equations that will be faster, but at best the people that need those equations are very few and an add on card or renting time on a server with quantum "stuff" will sufice.

>>59273374
>Why is there no discussion about quantum computers.
This shit is overrated.

Quantum computing is nothing like logical circuit computing. If you think it's a "another flavor of Turing-complete CPU except it can perform certain algorithms that used to be O(C^n) and turn them into O(n)", then you're going to be very disappointed. Consumers will probably have no use for them.

>>59273374
>becoming consumer gear.
lol, do you expect a consumer to keep a computer that has to be cooled to zero degrees Kelvin in their house?

>>59273374
Great introduction for complete beginners to programming adiabatic quantum computers.

http://www.dwavesys.com/sites/default/files/Map%20Coloring%20WP2.pdf

>>59273374
Quantum computing is best left to Canadians.

Why would you want use that technology in a consumer market? Muh gaming? I'm pretty sure that there will be other ways to make microprocessors rather than using silicon that will be implemented on the upcoming years.

This video is analogous to programming a QC.
Taking the feather is reading off the data.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KVPA-9hofw
Not practical in everyday computing.

>>59273374
We will only get quantum computers after optical ones, as quantum entanglement with photons is easyer than with electrons. But even then they are useless to the general public, so the only kind of quantum computer a normal person will have access will probably be in the cloud.

File: de1883aa4737b7e7f135bc2a078b9c105c4cc41f2e9efb5156ad18da9ce32789.jpg (56KB, 888x666px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 888x666px

>>59273374
this picture reminded me of this