[ExI] D-Wave's Quantum Computer
protokol2020 at gmail.com
Thu May 23 09:58:11 UTC 2013
> There is a curious lack of quantum algorithms
Yes. But maybe not that curious. The physical universe may not permit them
to be too super-duper.
I agree with this article.
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 07:17:58AM +0100, Anders Sandberg wrote:
> > On 2013-05-22 22:22, Kelly Anderson wrote:
> > >Even in the most optimistic scenarios, are quantum computers
> > >general purpose computing machines? Or are they simply machines
> > >that are capable of solving a certain class of problem extremely
> > >rapidly?
> > As far as I understand, they can be general purpose. You just use
> There is a curious lack of quantum algorithms, and they all
> seem to make use of quantum parallelism (evaluating multiple
> branches simultaneously, until entanglement collapses when
> you make your measurement to obtain your results).
> Even if QC is really all-purpose, it seems to have curious
> strengths and weaknesses, and makes VHDL look like a cakewalk.
> > gates that implement universal reversible operations. I don't think
> > they would be amazingly effective, but they could do it.
> My opinion hasn't changed so far: if QC really works (in
> the sense of more bang for a given budget of atoms and Joules
> vs. classical computation, including nanoelectronics, whic
> I don't think is true) it's not really practical.
> There might be a mixed domain with spintronics, if you can
> combine spin-polarized currents, spin valves and qubits in
> solid state close to room temperature. If it works, the
> size of qubit registers will be likely small (as you
> you said about error correction, and associated power
> budget), so no computers the size of a galaxy on top of your palm.
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat