11–20 of 36 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And besides that they are on their third startup, have a blog, will debate the finer points of faking it until you make it with gusto, and are proficient in LISP, Rust and Elixir.
And will explain monads to their parents
The article mentions that quantum computers are “an order of magnitude” faster than traditional computing. My understanding is that at the moment, this is incorrect: (noise-free) quantum computers are better at certain specific tasks, and otherwise, are no better than classical computers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And will explain monads to their parents
Which is why we got them in the first place! Failure to contain I mean.
> Using a theoretical protocol developed in the 1990s, Yale researchers experimentally demonstrated a quantum operation, or “gate,” without relying on any direct interaction.
They're basically saying it's magic. But no 5 year olds I hang out with are any good at magic yet.
The article mentions that quantum computers are “an order of magnitude” faster than traditional computing. My understanding is that at the moment, this is incorrect: (noise-free) quantum computers are better at certain specific tasks, and otherwise, are no better than classical computers.
If we're talking about algorithmic complexity: for some algorithms quantum computers won't be any better than classical ones; for others, the improvement will be exponential, not multiplicative, say from O(eⁿ) to O(n).
If we're talking about actual performance, we have no idea, because there is no general purpose quantum computer yet.
So the mention of "orders of magnitude" belies a complete ignorance of the topic.
I'm looking forward to the first quantum computer with hundreds or thousands of qubits, to see how the Many Worlds deniers explain its existence.
The article mentions that quantum computers are “an order of magnitude” faster than traditional computing. My understanding is that at the moment, this is incorrect: (noise-free) quantum computers are better at certain specific tasks, and otherwise, are no better than classical computers.
The "order of magnitude" statement is completely false. If we're talking about algorithmic complexity: for some algorithms quantum computers won't be any better than classical ones; for others, the improvement will be exponential, not multiplicative, say from O(eⁿ) to O(n). If we're talking about actual performance, we have no idea, because there is no general purpose quantum computer yet. So the mention of "orders o…
I'm looking forward to the first quantum computer with hundreds or thousands of qubits, to see how the Many Worlds deniers explain its existence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "order of magnitude" statement is completely false. If we're talking about algorithmic complexity: for some algorithms quantum computers won't be any better than classical ones; for others, the improvement will be exponential, not multiplicative, say from O(eⁿ) to O(n). If we're talking about actual performance, we have no idea, because there is no general purpose quantum computer yet. So the mention of "orders o…
Quantum computers will likely be hybridized with classical computers, meaning classical computers will just become really good at processing quantum algorithms as well. It really wouldn’t make sense to have a purely classical or purely quantum computer at the point where both technologies are available.
I'm looking forward to the first quantum computer with hundreds or thousands of qubits, to see how the Many Worlds deniers explain its existence.
Probably they would just explain it with the normal Copenhagen interpretation?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation
In terms of quantum theory, the behaviour of a quantum computer is not fundamentally any different to the behaviour of any small scale particle or collection of particles.
Even buckyballs have been shown to self-interfere in a double-slit experiment, and that doesn't _prove_ multi-worlds over the Copenhagen interpretation.
https://web.archive.org/web/20120331115055/http://www.quantu...
There might be other philosophical reasons to believe in many-worlds, and I am partial to it myself, but experimental observation of this form would not to my understanding contribute to that argument.