Say more
-
-
-
If my hunch is correct, the Church Turing thesis turns out to be a physical law, and QM, while correct, is not an ontological theory.
- 6 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
How come?
-
There may be a distinct physical reason that could lead to an unbreakable noise barrier that prevents us from getting enough logical qbits out of the physical ones to outperform classical computation.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Hope you're wrong on this, I'd really love to see simulation of chemistry with quantum computers.
-
Quantum computers may possibly be very good at simulating quantum phenomena, even if they cannot outperform classical computers.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Anything you would update/change or reinforce in this article? Why I don’t think that Quantum Computers will work, everhttp://bach.ai/quantum-computers-wont-work/ …
-
Note that Google intended to deliver quantum supremacy last December. Instead, IBM told us to prepare not for supremacy, but for "quantum readiness". I think they try to preserve some funding, which is justified, because even parallel probabilistic computing may be useful.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I think betting against you would never be winnable, as the outcome would be dependent upon the way the observation was made, and you would only ever make the observation in a way that proved your point. :P
-
No, the "decision of the observer" in quantum mechanics has no relationship to what you and me decide to observe. We don't get to decide whether a computer is faster than another here, it is a solid bet.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.