You said:
But you were not very specific what “everything” refers to in that sentence (I assumed everything quantum computed) and what it takes longer as (I assumed regular computing). But no you did not exactly say that. What you did say, if you did not mean what I thought you did, is still unclear to me.
And if you did say what I thought you were saying, (summarized as: quantum is hard and doesn’t work very well yet) I don’t see how that refutes my idea. Surely that will get better over time.
Pardon? I wasn’t trying to refute what you’re saying, beyond your incorrect assumption.
In short: Error rates matter to quantum computing processes, because they slow down the process of isolating the “signal” you want (the proper answer to w/e computing problem) or can even make it impossible to do so. Less error = good, that simple.
Can you tell me what incorrect assumption I made that you are replying to? I don’t think I ever said error rates don’t matter, so I’m really curious where this misunderstanding started.
Maybe quantum computers can divide by zero?
And totally fuck up any given timeline?
You asked me what I meant by a comment about error rates. It’s simply not about you/your comments =).
https://wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/Quantum
Quantum
The Discworld, of course, operates on magic. Magic flies the Turtle, spins the Disc and reclaims the Rimfall; it’s natural and normal and unremarkable. What sometimes perplexes people is the odd way in which things sometimes happen without apparent magical influence. These inexplicable phenomena are given the collective name quantum . The Wizards have created a model universe in which everything is governed by quantum, and there is no internal magical influence and no Narrativium.
Archchancellor Mustrum Ridcully uses the term dismissively as a catch-all phrase summing up all he finds distasteful and annoying in this new-fangled magic they’re “discovering” and “inventing” in the High Energy Magic Building at Unseen University. “Hooray,” he mutters, sourly, “here comes another bloody quantum…”
Darned if they 'fess up to the overall structure, either. 53 bits eh? 53 entangled qubits working in one harmonious monster computer or 53 total 2- and maybe 3-in-the-right-light-qubit machines (pun intended)? The former would be, I understand, a stunning achievement. The latter, well… less so.
Reminds me of an evening at the Grad House where we stagg^H^H^H^Hstrolled back through Engineering 2 where the quantum guys were back then. “Hey!” I called out loudly near some open lab doors, “isn’t this where they can factor 15!!!”.
Communication through entangled photons… that’s cool and might actually be working…
I’m just gonna stop this interaction. You are harder to understand then all this quantum stuff. No hard feelings 
My Server appears to be full of assholes and greifers. 
Think of all the pumpkin spice memes this thing can download!
Probably less than a standard PC, assuming your broadband is fast enough that your CPU is the bottleneck; quantum computing is worse for most standard PC tasks than conventional computing.
It’s similar to the difference in use-cases between massively parallel and more conventional, mostly linear computing (or at least as “linear” as anything is, these days ). MS Word runs better on old school, more traditional CPUs; deep simulations of nuclear explosions and climate models, on the other hand, benefit strongly from a very finely-grained, massively parallel approach.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
