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

Groups > sci.physics > #529133 > unrolled thread

Hey jimp | let's have a discussion about the progress toward quantum computing

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Hey jimp | let's have a discussion about the progress toward quantum computing Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 09:42 -0500
    Re: Hey jimp | let's have a discussion about the progress toward quantum computing Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-10-30 11:42 -0400
      Re: Hey jimp | let's have a discussion about the progress toward quantum computing jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-30 17:22 +0000
        Re: Hey jimp | let's have a discussion about the progress toward quantum computing "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 10:49 -0700
    Re: Hey jimp | let's have a discussion about the progress toward quantum computing Bobby Sifuentes <bobsif@academicinstitute.org> - 2015-10-30 15:46 +0000
    Re: Hey jimp | let's have a discussion about the progress toward quantum computing jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-30 17:20 +0000
      Re: Hey jimp | let's have a discussion about the progress toward quantum computing Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 18:32 -0500
        Re: Hey jimp | let's have a discussion about the progress toward quantum computing jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-01 00:07 +0000
          Re: Hey jimp | let's have a discussion about the progress toward quantum computing Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 20:46 -0500
            Re: Hey jimp | let's have a discussion about the progress toward quantum computing jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-01 02:22 +0000
            Why make quantum computer ? Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-11-01 01:40 -0700
              Re: Why make quantum computer ? gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-11-01 04:58 -0600
                Re: Why make quantum computer ? dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-01 11:08 -0500
                  Re: Why make quantum computer ? "Auric__" <not.my.real@email.address> - 2015-11-01 16:19 +0000
                    Re: Why make quantum computer ? gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-11-01 16:25 -0600
              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: Quantum "bits". R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2015-11-02 01:51 +0000
                    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 ? gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-11-01 18:12 -0600
                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
            Re: Hey jimp | let's have a discussion about the progress toward quantum computing jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-01 13:53 +0000
              Re: Hey jimp | let's have a discussion about the progress toward quantum computing Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 18:32 -0600
        Re: Hey jimp | let's have a discussion about the progress toward quantum computing Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 19:33 -0500
          Re: Hey jimp | let's have a discussion about the progress toward quantum computing benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 23:16 -0400
          Re: Hey jimp | let's have a discussion about the progress toward quantum computing "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 04:55 -0800
            Re: Hey jimp | let's have a discussion about the progress toward quantum computing Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 08:07 -0600
              Re: Hey jimp | let's have a discussion about the progress toward quantum computing Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-01 11:13 -0500

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#529133 — Hey jimp | let's have a discussion about the progress toward quantum computing

Hey jimp | let's have a discussion about the progress toward quantum 
computing.

But only if you act like a gentleman, both in style and content. A
scientific discussion.

What say you?



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#529140

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 09:42:45 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:

>Hey jimp | let's have a discussion about the progress toward quantum 
>computing.
>
>But only if you act like a gentleman, both in style and content. A
>scientific discussion.
>
>What say you?

Sci.physics is not an email service.

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

#529169

Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 09:42:45 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:
> 
>>Hey jimp | let's have a discussion about the progress toward quantum 
>>computing.
>>
>>But only if you act like a gentleman, both in style and content. A
>>scientific discussion.
>>
>>What say you?
> 
> Sci.physics is not an email service.

Nor will he ever discuss anything with anyone anyway. 

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#529173

On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 10:31:06 AM UTC-7, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 09:42:45 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > 
> >>Hey jimp | let's have a discussion about the progress toward quantum 
> >>computing.
> >>
> >>But only if you act like a gentleman, both in style and content. A
> >>scientific discussion.
> >>
> >>What say you?
> > 
> > Sci.physics is not an email service.
> 
> Nor will he ever discuss anything with anyone anyway. 
> 
> -- 
> Jim Pennino

Jim You are right about Sam not thinking on his own.He is big on gravity waves,but ask him why,or what is waving,and how they can act over distance abd he goes "HUH" He was never taught how to think. He is a weak part of the teaching system.  TreBert

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

#529141

Sam Wormley wrote:

> Hey jimp | let's have a discussion about the progress toward quantum
> computing. But only if you act like a gentleman, both in style and 
> content. A scientific discussion. What say you?

You know no science, stfu, just keep quoting others, short. Thank you in 
advance.

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

#529168

Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey jimp | let's have a discussion about the progress toward quantum 
> computing.
> 
> But only if you act like a gentleman, both in style and content. A
> scientific discussion.
> 
> What say you?
 
I say you will be incapable of anything other than cut and paste.

Quantum computing is yet another pie-in-the-sky dream that is unlikely
to ever become real like a cure for the common cold and peace in the
Middle East. 
 

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#529562

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 17:20:35 +0000, jimp wrote:

> Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hey jimp | let's have a discussion about the progress toward quantum
>> computing.
>> 
>> But only if you act like a gentleman, both in style and content. A
>> scientific discussion.
>> 
>> What say you?
>  
> I say you will be incapable of anything other than cut and paste.
> 
> Quantum computing is yet another pie-in-the-sky dream that is unlikely
> to ever become real like a cure for the common cold and peace in the
> Middle East.

Quantum computers which perform "quantum annealing", used to solve linear 
programming problems, are already in use.  Much like the special-purpose 
analog computers used in the 1960s for hydrology simulations and the like, 
they are a harbinger of things to come.

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

#529578

Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 17:20:35 +0000, jimp wrote:
> 
>> Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hey jimp | let's have a discussion about the progress toward quantum
>>> computing.
>>> 
>>> But only if you act like a gentleman, both in style and content. A
>>> scientific discussion.
>>> 
>>> What say you?
>>  
>> I say you will be incapable of anything other than cut and paste.
>> 
>> Quantum computing is yet another pie-in-the-sky dream that is unlikely
>> to ever become real like a cure for the common cold and peace in the
>> Middle East.
> 
> Quantum computers which perform "quantum annealing", used to solve linear 
> programming problems, are already in use.  Much like the special-purpose 
> analog computers used in the 1960s for hydrology simulations and the like, 
> they are a harbinger of things to come.

Such are special purpose devices, not usefull as a general purpose
computer, and whether or not these things can exceed the performance
of a traditional computer is unanswered.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_annealing

FYI there were general purpose analog computers.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#529595

On Sun, 01 Nov 2015 00:07:28 +0000, jimp wrote:

> Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 17:20:35 +0000, jimp wrote:
>> 
>>> Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hey jimp | let's have a discussion about the progress toward quantum
>>>> computing.
>>>> 
>>>> But only if you act like a gentleman, both in style and content. A
>>>> scientific discussion.
>>>> 
>>>> What say you?
>>>  
>>> I say you will be incapable of anything other than cut and paste.
>>> 
>>> Quantum computing is yet another pie-in-the-sky dream that is unlikely
>>> to ever become real like a cure for the common cold and peace in the
>>> Middle East.
>> 
>> Quantum computers which perform "quantum annealing", used to solve
>> linear programming problems, are already in use.  Much like the
>> special-purpose analog computers used in the 1960s for hydrology
>> simulations and the like,
>> they are a harbinger of things to come.
> 
> Such are special purpose devices, not usefull as a general purpose
> computer, and whether or not these things can exceed the performance of
> a traditional computer is unanswered.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_annealing
> 
> FYI there were general purpose analog computers.

Special purpose devices, and in the beginning even general purpose digital 
computers were niche technology, because they are the first such devices 
whose development are economically justified, are a useful platform for 
perfecting technology.

Such is the case with special-purpose quantum computers.

In the case of quantum computation, the theory is solid.  Even a simpleton 
like myself can understand it.

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.

What will make it easier and cheaper?

People buying the expensive devices, and other people figuring out how to 
make them less expensive to manufacture, so they can buy bigger cars.

Cynical?  No, practical.  I'm a big fan of government-sponsored basic 
research, but once the fundamentals are known there is nothing in the 
world like the profit motive to keep people kaizening the gizmos.

Like Moore's Observation (No, it isn't a fucking *law*.) that every 1-1/2 
years people will have packed twice as many transistors on a silicon chip, 
this is largely a matter of human nature: once we start paying for things, 
we'll make better ones until we reach the limits of the technology.

This is now the case with technologies like machine learning, which have 
recently become commercial propositions.  It will be the case with quantum 
computers.

Wait and see.

-- 
Goat

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

#529602

Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Nov 2015 00:07:28 +0000, jimp wrote:
> 
>> Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 17:20:35 +0000, jimp wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hey jimp | let's have a discussion about the progress toward quantum
>>>>> computing.
>>>>> 
>>>>> But only if you act like a gentleman, both in style and content. A
>>>>> scientific discussion.
>>>>> 
>>>>> What say you?
>>>>  
>>>> I say you will be incapable of anything other than cut and paste.
>>>> 
>>>> Quantum computing is yet another pie-in-the-sky dream that is unlikely
>>>> to ever become real like a cure for the common cold and peace in the
>>>> Middle East.
>>> 
>>> Quantum computers which perform "quantum annealing", used to solve
>>> linear programming problems, are already in use.  Much like the
>>> special-purpose analog computers used in the 1960s for hydrology
>>> simulations and the like,
>>> they are a harbinger of things to come.
>> 
>> Such are special purpose devices, not usefull as a general purpose
>> computer, and whether or not these things can exceed the performance of
>> a traditional computer is unanswered.
>> 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_annealing
>> 
>> FYI there were general purpose analog computers.
> 
> Special purpose devices, and in the beginning even general purpose digital 
> computers were niche technology, because they are the first such devices 
> whose development are economically justified, are a useful platform for 
> perfecting technology.
> 
> Such is the case with special-purpose quantum computers.
> 
> In the case of quantum computation, the theory is solid.  Even a simpleton 
> like myself can understand it.
> 
> 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.
> 
> What will make it easier and cheaper?
> 
> People buying the expensive devices, and other people figuring out how to 
> make them less expensive to manufacture, so they can buy bigger cars.
> 
> Cynical?  No, practical.  I'm a big fan of government-sponsored basic 
> research, but once the fundamentals are known there is nothing in the 
> world like the profit motive to keep people kaizening the gizmos.
> 
> Like Moore's Observation (No, it isn't a fucking *law*.) that every 1-1/2 
> years people will have packed twice as many transistors on a silicon chip, 
> this is largely a matter of human nature: once we start paying for things, 
> we'll make better ones until we reach the limits of the technology.
> 
> This is now the case with technologies like machine learning, which have 
> recently become commercial propositions.  It will be the case with quantum 
> computers.

What a pile of arm waving.

The first basic problem; general purpose quantum computers don't exist.

The second basic problem; quantum computers can not be made on an assembly
line and there is little hope that will change in the foreseeable future.

> Wait and see.

I'm not holding my breath.

 
-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#529657 — Why make quantum computer ?

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

#529663 — Re: Why make quantum computer ?

On 11/1/2015 2:40 AM, 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 ?
>

they are buzz words used to grab readers attention to read article.

(like "driverless car", who would ever buy one? )

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

#529708 — Re: Why make quantum computer ?

On 11/1/2015 5:58 AM, gilber34 wrote:
> On 11/1/2015 2:40 AM, 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 ?
>>
>
> they are buzz words used to grab readers attention to read article.
>
> (like "driverless car", who would ever buy one? )

People who can't drive?

-- 
dvus

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

#529710 — Re: Why make quantum computer ?

dvus wrote:

> On 11/1/2015 5:58 AM, gilber34 wrote:
[snip]
>> they are buzz words used to grab readers attention to read article.
>>
>> (like "driverless car", who would ever buy one? )
>
> People who can't drive?

Cab companies. Think "Johnny Cab" from Total Recall.

-- 
Silence is golden, knowledge is power,
so shut your goddamn mouth and listen.

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

#529784 — Re: Why make quantum computer ?

On 11/1/2015 10:19 AM, Auric__ wrote:
> dvus wrote:
>
>> On 11/1/2015 5:58 AM, gilber34 wrote:
> [snip]
>>> they are buzz words used to grab readers attention to read article.
>>>
>>> (like "driverless car", who would ever buy one? )
>>
>> People who can't drive?
>
> Cab companies. Think "Johnny Cab" from Total Recall.
>

Johnny gets busted up in that movie too!
Bet Robots get programmed to be bipolar, nice or mean.

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

#529672 — Re: Why make quantum computer ?

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]

#529895 — Re: Why make quantum computer ?

Alan Browne wrote:

>On 2015-11-01 03:40, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:

*plonk*

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

#529712 — Re: Why make quantum computer ?

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]

#529722 — Why make quantum computer ?

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]

#529740 — Re: Why make quantum computer ?

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]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web