Classic von Neumann: "You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that!"
-
-
(Nitpicking alert) In this case, can't we precisely describe what a quantum computer does but not in "simple concrete terms" which are a function of natural language that is grounded in "non-spooky" observations? Aren't those two different things?
-
Of course - that's why the snippet above is careful to restrict itself to "simple concrete explanations".
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
We can use conventional computers to simulate quantum computers though. Here's an example: http://www.quantumplayground.net/#/home The problem is simulating quantum algorithms on classical computers doesn't scale well.
-
This is discussed in the essay. It's hard to see in the excerpt I quoted, since the work is being done by qualifiers ("simple, direct", "intractable" etc) that are explained elsewhere. http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/quantum-computing-for-everyone/ …
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Something is not right about this argument. We can describe very precisely how various algorithms work, but that doesn't make them any faster; a conceptual understanding doesn't translate to faster execution. I think the same should be the case with quantum computation.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.