Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.computer.security > #5453 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-11-01 01:40 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-11-01 19:48 -0500 |
| Articles | 15 — 5 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.computer.security
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Why make quantum computer ? Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-11-01 01:40 -0700
Re: Why make quantum computer ? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-11-01 07:57 -0500
Re: Why make quantum computer ? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-02 08:06 -0600
Re: Why make quantum computer ? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-11-01 17:12 +0000
Why make quantum computer ? Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-11-01 09:53 -0800
Re: Why make quantum computer ? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-11-01 19:11 +0000
Quantum "bits". Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-11-01 13:26 -0800
Re: Quantum "bits". Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-11-01 19:47 -0500
Re: Why make quantum computer ? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-11-01 19:50 -0500
Re: Why make quantum computer ? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-02 08:07 -0600
Re: Why make quantum computer ? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-11-02 11:08 -0500
Re: Why make quantum computer ? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-11-01 19:49 -0500
Re: Why make quantum computer ? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-11-01 19:49 -0500
Re: Why make quantum computer ? Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2015-11-01 21:37 +0000
Re: Why make quantum computer ? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-11-01 19:48 -0500
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 01:40 -0700 |
| Subject | Why make quantum computer ? |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Nov.1{1.40A.Seattle.2015}> |
Bob_Watkins (in Sci.Physics) wrote: > The biggest stumbling blocks in the way of practical quantum computers > are the transmission and storage of quantum states, > whatever their physical embodiment, in the computer's hardware. > > Reliably entangling qbits, and then maintaining their coherence, > can be done, but it's difficult and it's expensive. Quantum Computing isn't just expensive, it's (nearly?) impossible and has no known benefits. Why make quantum computer ?
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 07:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <X-6dnfBjQ6WCkavLnZ2dnUU7-XGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #5453 |
On 2015-11-01 03:40, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > Bob_Watkins (in Sci.Physics) wrote: >> The biggest stumbling blocks in the way of practical quantum computers >> are the transmission and storage of quantum states, >> whatever their physical embodiment, in the computer's hardware. >> >> Reliably entangling qbits, and then maintaining their coherence, >> can be done, but it's difficult and it's expensive. > > Quantum Computing isn't just expensive, > it's (nearly?) impossible and has no known benefits. > > Why make quantum computer ? Because.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 08:06 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <udre3bpkpdo43dlf5utrudoe2vn67gvr18@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #5454 |
Alan Browne wrote: >On 2015-11-01 03:40, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: *plonk*
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 17:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n15h5r$lal$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #5453 |
On 2015-11-01, Jeff-Relf.Me <> wrote: > Bob_Watkins (in Sci.Physics) wrote: >> The biggest stumbling blocks in the way of practical quantum computers >> are the transmission and storage of quantum states, >> whatever their physical embodiment, in the computer's hardware. >> >> Reliably entangling qbits, and then maintaining their coherence, >> can be done, but it's difficult and it's expensive. > > Quantum Computing isn't just expensive, > it's (nearly?) impossible and has no known benefits. It has a number of known benefits. VASTLY faster solution of some hard problems is one. (the most famous of which is factoring). > > Why make quantum computer ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 09:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Nov.1{9.53A.Seattle.2015}> |
| In reply to | #5455 |
William_Unruh replied (to me): > > Quantum Computing isn't just expensive, > > it's (nearly?) impossible and has no known benefits. > > It has a number of known benefits. > VASTLY faster solution of some hardproblems is one. > (the most famous of which is factoring). In theory, or in practice ? As I understand it, no one has ever streamed qubits.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 19:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n15o4s$ocp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #5456 |
On 2015-11-01, Jeff-Relf.Me <> wrote: > William_Unruh replied (to me): >> > Quantum Computing isn't just expensive, >> > it's (nearly?) impossible and has no known benefits. >> >> It has a number of known benefits. >> VASTLY faster solution of some hardproblems is one. >> (the most famous of which is factoring). > > In theory, or in practice ? ??? At present obviously in theory. But your second comment "no known benefits" was not about practice. > > As I understand it, > no one has ever streamed qubits. No idea what "streamed qubits" means.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 13:26 -0800 |
| Subject | Quantum "bits". |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Nov.1{1.26P.Seattle.2015}> |
| In reply to | #5457 |
William_Unruh replied (to me): > > As I understand it, > > no one has ever streamed qubits. > > No idea what "streamed qubits" means. Video (binary bits) can be streamed from a server to my browser, where I watch it. No one can do that with "qubits" (quantum "bits").
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 19:47 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Quantum "bits". |
| Message-ID | <VYGdnZur5qBfL6vLnZ2dnUU7-LmdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #5458 |
On 2015-11-01 16:26, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > William_Unruh replied (to me): >>> As I understand it, >>> no one has ever streamed qubits. >> >> No idea what "streamed qubits" means. > > Video (binary bits) can be streamed from > a server to my browser, where I watch it. > > No one can do that with "qubits" (quantum "bits"). Why is that?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 19:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <VYGdnZer5qDCLqvLnZ2dnUU7-LmdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #5457 |
On 2015-11-01 14:11, William Unruh wrote: > On 2015-11-01, Jeff-Relf.Me <> wrote: >> William_Unruh replied (to me): >>>> Quantum Computing isn't just expensive, >>>> it's (nearly?) impossible and has no known benefits. >>> >>> It has a number of known benefits. >>> VASTLY faster solution of some hardproblems is one. >>> (the most famous of which is factoring). >> >> In theory, or in practice ? > > ??? At present obviously in theory. But your second comment "no known > benefits" was not about practice. > >> >> As I understand it, >> no one has ever streamed qubits. > > No idea what "streamed qubits" means. He likes Netflix.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 08:07 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <1gre3b543kdk31t9cq6rmckloabt80o0em@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #5457 |
William Unruh wrote: >On 2015-11-01, Jeff-Relf.Me <> wrote: *plonk*
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 11:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <PYGdnQmqCJYWF6rLnZ2dnUU7-LudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #5466 |
On 2015-11-02 09:07, chrisv wrote: > William Unruh wrote: > >> On 2015-11-01, Jeff-Relf.Me <> wrote: > > *plonk* > Why? It's valuable stuff!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 19:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <VYGdnZSr5qCuLqvLnZ2dnUU7-LmdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #5456 |
On 2015-11-01 12:53, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > William_Unruh replied (to me): >>> Quantum Computing isn't just expensive, >>> it's (nearly?) impossible and has no known benefits. >> >> It has a number of known benefits. >> VASTLY faster solution of some hardproblems is one. >> (the most famous of which is factoring). > > In theory, or in practice ? > > As I understand it, > no one has ever streamed qubits. Proof?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 19:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <VYGdnZWr5qCELqvLnZ2dnUU7-LmdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #5455 |
On 2015-11-01 12:12, William Unruh wrote: > On 2015-11-01, Jeff-Relf.Me <> wrote: >> Bob_Watkins (in Sci.Physics) wrote: >>> The biggest stumbling blocks in the way of practical quantum computers >>> are the transmission and storage of quantum states, >>> whatever their physical embodiment, in the computer's hardware. >>> >>> Reliably entangling qbits, and then maintaining their coherence, >>> can be done, but it's difficult and it's expensive. >> >> Quantum Computing isn't just expensive, >> it's (nearly?) impossible and has no known benefits. > > It has a number of known benefits. VASTLY faster solution of some hard > problems is one. (the most famous of which is factoring). Examples?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 21:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n160m3$p9b$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #5453 |
For your reference, records indicate that Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> wrote: > Why make quantum computer ? Asks the person creating a superposition of 6 newsgroups. -- "Also . . . I can kill you with my brain." River Tam, Trash, Firefly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 19:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <VYGdnZqr5qB9L6vLnZ2dnUU7-LkAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #5459 |
On 2015-11-01 16:37, Doc O'Leary wrote: > For your reference, records indicate that > Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> wrote: > >> Why make quantum computer ? > > Asks the person creating a superposition of 6 newsgroups. Is that 12 positions?
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | alt.computer.security
csiph-web