Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.lang.intercal > #18 > unrolled thread

Question about CLC-INTERCAL

Back to article view | Back to alt.lang.intercal

Contents

  Question about CLC-INTERCAL "spartan.the" <spartan.the@gmail.com> - 2019-02-14 04:48 -0800
    Re: Question about CLC-INTERCAL Claudio Calvelli <c.news@w42.org.invalid> - 2019-02-15 08:25 +0000
      Re: Question about CLC-INTERCAL "spartan.the" <spartan.the@gmail.com> - 2019-02-27 10:53 -0800

#18 — Question about CLC-INTERCAL

Today I was deciding to go to the quantum computing on .NET show or not. Of course, Microsoft quantum system integrates seamlessly with Azure, promising to prepare my data and infrastructure today to unlock amazing possibilities tomorrow. 

Prepare today, unlock tomorrow? No, I can't wait so long.

Sure, developers without any idea what Quantum computing is will try to unleash new possibilities by copy-pasting from examples and will start to scream that their CRM systems need to be redesigned for quantum computing. Because it's easy to do so in Microsoft world since the rise of Visual Basic.

But digging into it more I found that CLC-INTERCAL was designed for quantum computing very early, since version 0.04. I think it must be much more mature today in QC, compared to what IBM, Microsoft or Google have to offer.

My question is very simple: what are best practices to write a program in CLC-INTERCAL that reads out HELLO WORLD! with probability greater or equal to 98%?

(Of course, using QC. Because everyone knows how to write it without QC with almost 100% chances it will read out it. But these techniques are considered old today.)

/s

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#19

On 2019-02-14, spartan.the <spartan.the@gmail.com> wrote:
> But digging into it more I found that CLC-INTERCAL was designed for quantum computing very early, since version 0.04. I think it must be much more mature today in QC, compared to what IBM, Microsoft or Google have to offer.

Not absolutely sure the word is "designed".  I think alcohol might have
been involved that evening.  All I know is that before the next morning
somebody (and I'm not admitting it could have been me) had added some
code to my compiler and it somehow supported quantum computers (but of
course could not be tested for some excuse due to the unavailablility of
hardware).

> My question is very simple: what are best practices to write a program in CLC-INTERCAL that reads out HELLO WORLD! with probability greater or equal to 98%?

That's a very good question, quantum bits are expected to be all states
at once, but the normal probability to find one with value "0" is 50%.
So a "READ OUT WHILE NOT READING OUT" would not do.

Creating a number of quantum bits and asking they are found to be in a
particular set of states when observed seems to be the way, but I can't
say I have any ready code for that.  Will need to think about it.

> (Of course, using QC. Because everyone knows how to write it without QC with almost 100% chances it will read out it. But these techniques are considered old today.)

Of course.  With any form of INTERCAL the task is simplicity itself as
long as you don't want to make sure you are using QC functionality.

> /s

CLC

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22

On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 10:25:08 AM UTC+2, Claudio Calvelli wrote:

> Not absolutely sure the word is "designed".  I think alcohol might have
> been involved that evening.  All I know is that before the next morning
> somebody (and I'm not admitting it could have been me) had added some
> code to my compiler and it somehow supported quantum computers (but of
> course could not be tested for some excuse due to the unavailablility of
> hardware).

There may be some numeric value that is called Steve Balmer Constant. I think it is not constant, but adjustable by age, weight and mood. So the word "designed" could also be adjusted.

The future of QC seems bright because it's proven that QC is "Turing complete". That's just another way (in programmers' slang) to say "Turing is dead".

/s

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | alt.lang.intercal

csiph-web