|
Pacmanpth
Stranger


Registered: 01/29/11
Posts: 583
Last seen: 11 years, 9 months
|
Quantum computing
#15221066 - 10/13/11 05:56 PM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Quantum computing [Re: Pacmanpth]
#15221089 - 10/13/11 06:00 PM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Digital is about to go the way of the dinosaurs. It's quantum time!
I dont think so. The vast majority of algorithms still take less time with a classical computer than a quantum computer.
|
Pacmanpth
Stranger


Registered: 01/29/11
Posts: 583
Last seen: 11 years, 9 months
|
Re: Quantum computing [Re: DieCommie]
#15221224 - 10/13/11 06:28 PM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DieCommie said:
I dont think so. The vast majority of algorithms still take less time with a classical computer than a quantum computer.
This is true currently. The thing is, each qubit that is added to a quantum computing system doubles its calculation speed. Current rate of processing speed increase per time unit with digital integrated circuits is about a doubling every 16-24 months. We are achieving a growth in quantum computing of much faster than 1 qubit increase to stable quantum computing systems every 16-24 months, so by comparing the two non-linear rates, quantum computing will quickly outpace the growth of digital circuits, and those algorithms will no longer take less time on a classical system.
Epic sig.
Edited by Pacmanpth (10/13/11 06:37 PM)
|
ChuangTzu
starvingphysicist



Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 3,060
Last seen: 10 years, 7 months
|
Re: Quantum computing [Re: Pacmanpth]
#15221854 - 10/13/11 08:18 PM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
What DieCommie was pointing out is that quantum computers are only really good at performing certain classes of tasks. For performing most aspects of general computation, they suck, no matter how many qubits they have.
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Quantum computing [Re: Pacmanpth]
#15222296 - 10/13/11 09:29 PM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Pacmanpth said:
Quote:
DieCommie said:
I dont think so. The vast majority of algorithms still take less time with a classical computer than a quantum computer.
This is true currently. The thing is, each qubit that is added to a quantum computing system doubles its calculation speed. Current rate of processing speed increase per time unit with digital integrated circuits is about a doubling every 16-24 months. We are achieving a growth in quantum computing of much faster than 1 qubit increase to stable quantum computing systems every 16-24 months, so by comparing the two non-linear rates, quantum computing will quickly outpace the growth of digital circuits, and those algorithms will no longer take less time on a classical system.
Epic sig.
Im not talking about engineering limitations, Im talking about computer science and information theory limitations. Do you know about big O notation? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_complexity
As far as I know, most algorithms have a shorter or smaller time complexity on a classical computer than on a quantum computer. Few (a dozen or so?) algorithms have been shown to work in shorter time within a quantum computer than a classical computer. These are the only algorithms that are worth building a quantum computer for because they are the only algorithms that a quantum computer can do better than a classical computer. For home computing, you use a variety of algorithms and thus most all of the tasks performed on a home computer would be performed faster if that computer is classical (never mind the reprogramming aspect).
|
Pacmanpth
Stranger


Registered: 01/29/11
Posts: 583
Last seen: 11 years, 9 months
|
Re: Quantum computing [Re: DieCommie]
#15222600 - 10/13/11 10:28 PM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DieCommie said: Im not talking about engineering limitations, Im talking about computer science and information theory limitations. Do you know about big O notation? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_complexity
As far as I know, most algorithms have a shorter or smaller time complexity on a classical computer than on a quantum computer. Few (a dozen or so?) algorithms have been shown to work in shorter time within a quantum computer than a classical computer. These are the only algorithms that are worth building a quantum computer for because they are the only algorithms that a quantum computer can do better than a classical computer. For home computing, you use a variety of algorithms and thus most all of the tasks performed on a home computer would be performed faster if that computer is classical (never mind the reprogramming aspect).
Ah, I see. Yes, software and programming language definitely has a lot of underutilized potential right now. I'd imagine that algorithms specifically written for/on quantum computers, once they are a little more mainstream and amateur programmers start tinkering around with them, will circumvent the need for classical type algorithms. I may be completely wrong about that, though. I just see it as a very powerful tool once people understand them and understand how to program them. Right now it's more like "Hey, we can build this, it's epicly powerful, but we don't know quite why it works or how to use it". Language has some growing to do to catch up to our hardware capabilities, such that their potential can truly be realized.
|
|