Will the QC kill the PC?
-
What do you think: Will the QC kill the PC? [^]
Giorgi Dalakishvili #region signature my articles #endregion
I won't hold my breath. -CB ;)
-
What do you think: Will the QC kill the PC? [^]
Giorgi Dalakishvili #region signature my articles #endregion
Now we will receive millions times more spam and malware than we do already. Remember the spammers will have those machines as well. Then when Q-McAfee comes out it will proceed to absorb a huge chunk of QAM and QPU like it does now with RAM and CPU. It still boggles my mind that McAfee currently occupies over 100 times the original PC's memory space. Q-Vista will run slower than ever. On the up side you can get all the pron on the internet instantaneously.
-
What do you think: Will the QC kill the PC? [^]
Giorgi Dalakishvili #region signature my articles #endregion
-
You'll finally be able to hit all three at once and be guaranteed something will happen!
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! VCF Blog
-
Why does "everyone" (=journalists) think that quantum computers will be much faster than traditional computers? Quantum computers are no magic machines that can brute-force anything in parallel. AFAIK, they don't make breaking AES easier. So far, there are only a few quantum algorithms that are significantly better than the best known traditional counterpart. Unfortunately, factoring large numbers is one of them, so basically all asymmetric cryptography is broken.
Of course this is still all theoretical. It's never been done--I'm pretty sure that would be big news.
“Time and space can be a bitch.” –Gushie, Quantum Leap {o,o}.oO( Looking for a great RSS reader? Try FeedBeast! ) |)””’) Built with home-grown CodeProject components! -”-”-
-
Now we will receive millions times more spam and malware than we do already. Remember the spammers will have those machines as well. Then when Q-McAfee comes out it will proceed to absorb a huge chunk of QAM and QPU like it does now with RAM and CPU. It still boggles my mind that McAfee currently occupies over 100 times the original PC's memory space. Q-Vista will run slower than ever. On the up side you can get all the pron on the internet instantaneously.
bdenton42 wrote:
Q-Vista
Shouldn't that be Quindows? :)
“Time and space can be a bitch.” –Gushie, Quantum Leap {o,o}.oO( Looking for a great RSS reader? Try FeedBeast! ) |)””’) Built with home-grown CodeProject components! -”-”-
-
Of course this is still all theoretical. It's never been done--I'm pretty sure that would be big news.
“Time and space can be a bitch.” –Gushie, Quantum Leap {o,o}.oO( Looking for a great RSS reader? Try FeedBeast! ) |)””’) Built with home-grown CodeProject components! -”-”-
It's already been done with a handful of qubits. The existing quantum computers have so few qubits that the numbers that can be factored by them are so small that can be factored easily using pen and paper, but that's going to change as larger quantum computers get build. Sure, scaling up quantum computers is a huge technical problem, but I think it'll be solved soon.
-
It's already been done with a handful of qubits. The existing quantum computers have so few qubits that the numbers that can be factored by them are so small that can be factored easily using pen and paper, but that's going to change as larger quantum computers get build. Sure, scaling up quantum computers is a huge technical problem, but I think it'll be solved soon.
Interesting. I wasn't even aware they had been able to do it on a small scale yet. The one question I have based on my limited knowledge, is how are the results "found" after they are supposedly computed in parallel? That is, if the power of quantum computing arises from its supposed ability to perform many many (i.e. "all") iterations at the same time, does this not merely result in a set of all possible results? If so, how is the "right" result found, and moreover, the input that resulted in that result determined from it?
“Time and space can be a bitch.” –Gushie, Quantum Leap {o,o}.oO( Looking for a great RSS reader? Try FeedBeast! ) |)””’) Built with home-grown CodeProject components! -”-”-
-
Well, the PC will change shape for sure but, once again, software development will lag behind hardware advancement. How the hell are you supposed to program that thing in the first place? :suss:
GSGeek wrote:
How the hell are you supposed to program that thing in the first place?
Using a quantum programming language[^]? Don't worry, I'll be like any other programming language: the important new features will be copied into C#; so just get Visual Studio Quantum Edition and start programming ;P
-
Interesting. I wasn't even aware they had been able to do it on a small scale yet. The one question I have based on my limited knowledge, is how are the results "found" after they are supposedly computed in parallel? That is, if the power of quantum computing arises from its supposed ability to perform many many (i.e. "all") iterations at the same time, does this not merely result in a set of all possible results? If so, how is the "right" result found, and moreover, the input that resulted in that result determined from it?
“Time and space can be a bitch.” –Gushie, Quantum Leap {o,o}.oO( Looking for a great RSS reader? Try FeedBeast! ) |)””’) Built with home-grown CodeProject components! -”-”-
I don't know quantum computing very well either, but I'm currently reading these lectures on it: http://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/[^] But you cannot just do "everything in parallel" and pick out the right result. It would be nice to have a computer that could do that, but as powerful as quantum computers might be, they aren't THAT powerful.
http://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/ wrote:
More concretely, suppose you're searching a space of 2^n possible solutions for a single valid one, and suppose that all you can do, given a candidate solution, is feed it to a 'black box' that tells you whether that solution is correct or not. Then how many times do you need to query the black box to find the valid solution? Classically, it's clear that you need to query it ~2^n times in the worst case (or ~2^n/2 times on average). On the other hand, Grover famously gave a quantum search algorithm that queries the black box only ~2^(n/2) times. But even before Grover's algorithm was discovered, Bennett et al. had proved that it was optimal! In other words, any quantum algorithm to find a needle in a size-2^n haystack needs at least ~2^(n/2) steps. So the bottom line is that, for "generic" or "unstructured" search problems, quantum computers can give some speedup over classical computers -- specifically, a quadratic speedup -- but nothing like the exponential speedup of Shor's factoring algorithm.
-
If that didn't help, try: www.badgerbadgerbadger.com[^] Iain.
Plz sir... CPallini CPallini abuz drugz, plz plz help urgent.
that is somewhat disturbing :|
-
I don't know quantum computing very well either, but I'm currently reading these lectures on it: http://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/[^] But you cannot just do "everything in parallel" and pick out the right result. It would be nice to have a computer that could do that, but as powerful as quantum computers might be, they aren't THAT powerful.
http://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/ wrote:
More concretely, suppose you're searching a space of 2^n possible solutions for a single valid one, and suppose that all you can do, given a candidate solution, is feed it to a 'black box' that tells you whether that solution is correct or not. Then how many times do you need to query the black box to find the valid solution? Classically, it's clear that you need to query it ~2^n times in the worst case (or ~2^n/2 times on average). On the other hand, Grover famously gave a quantum search algorithm that queries the black box only ~2^(n/2) times. But even before Grover's algorithm was discovered, Bennett et al. had proved that it was optimal! In other words, any quantum algorithm to find a needle in a size-2^n haystack needs at least ~2^(n/2) steps. So the bottom line is that, for "generic" or "unstructured" search problems, quantum computers can give some speedup over classical computers -- specifically, a quadratic speedup -- but nothing like the exponential speedup of Shor's factoring algorithm.
Interesting. This only makes it clear that I don't understand how quantum algorithms work at all. The "plain english" explanations I've read obviously were not very accurate.
“Time and space can be a bitch.” –Gushie, Quantum Leap {o,o}.oO( Looking for a great RSS reader? Try FeedBeast! ) |)””’) Built with home-grown CodeProject components! -”-”-