3 ms·

But this is like arguing that computer scientists shouldn't take algorithms courses. Actually, it's not just like it, it -is- arguing that they shouldn't bother

by irljf 10y ago

But this is like arguing that computer scientists shouldn't take algorithms courses. Actually, it's not just like it, it -is- arguing that they shouldn't bother learning to understand certain types of algorithms. Without that knowledge, how do you possibly know how to get an advantage from the co-processor beyond blind luck or hoping the API implements exactly the functionality you want?

ufo 10y ago
I'm not an expert on quantum programmig but the impression I kind of got is that you don't just go around writing quantum programs like you would for a classical computers. Instead, you have very particular problems where very particular quantum algorithms are more efficient than the classical ones. If I had to bet I would guess that quantum programming is going to be more like "linear programming", where instead of programming the algorithm instructions you program by preparing the inputs that you will pass to the specialized subsystem.
dheera 10y ago
It's more like arguing that computer scientists shouldn't have to learn how ICs are fabricated and how PCBs are designed. They can learn if they want, but they shouldn't have to. Quantum algorithms are so vastly different in nature from classical algorithms that it will necessarily be its own branch of science. It takes an entirely different mode of thinking; for example, basic physics laws forbid you from copying a qubit that is in an arbitrary quantum state. That's right, you cannot copy a quantum variable as that would violate fundamental laws of the universe as we know it. Most computer scientists are not used to that kind of thinking. However traditional computer science thinking will not vanish, because quantum computers will never be a replacement for classical computers; they are good at speeding up very specific classes of computations and not particularly suited for general computing or building interfaces with the outside world. Quantum computer science and classical computer science will be two fields of study that will both continue to evolve in their own right.
- irljf 10y ago
  I strongly disagree. The IC and PCB analogy is not accurate. The equivalent would be saying that computer scientists should not need to learn about ion traps and SQUIDs, and I would agree with that. Quantum algorithms, on the other hand, are just algorithms, albeit ones in which you are allowed an extra operation. While now may or may not be the time to introduce this into CS courses, quantum information processing will only become more important over time, rather than less. The argument about them never superseding classical computers isn't something that there is any real support for, except that it is hard to build QCs at the moment. The same could have been said for classical computers not that long ago. It's not clear from your answer whether you know this or not, but quantum computers can perform classical computation. So, this is like in the 40s saying that there would always be a roll for human computers or mechanical computers, while now we would think that was a ridiculous position given at how good we have gotten at making ICs.

by irljf 10y ago

ufo 10y ago

I'm not an expert on quantum programmig but the impression I kind of got is that you don't just go around writing quantum programs like you would for a classical computers. Instead, you have very particular problems where very particular quantum algorithms are more efficient than the classical ones. If I had to bet I would guess that quantum programming is going to be more like "linear programming", where instead of programming the algorithm instructions you program by preparing the inputs that you will pass to the specialized subsystem.

dheera 10y ago

It's more like arguing that computer scientists shouldn't have to learn how ICs are fabricated and how PCBs are designed. They can learn if they want, but they shouldn't have to. Quantum algorithms are so vastly different in nature from classical algorithms that it will necessarily be its own branch of science. It takes an entirely different mode of thinking; for example, basic physics laws forbid you from copying a qubit that is in an arbitrary quantum state. That's right, you cannot copy a quantum variable as that would violate fundamental laws of the universe as we know it. Most computer scientists are not used to that kind of thinking. However traditional computer science thinking will not vanish, because quantum computers will never be a replacement for classical computers; they are good at speeding up very specific classes of computations and not particularly suited for general computing or building interfaces with the outside world. Quantum computer science and classical computer science will be two fields of study that will both continue to evolve in their own right.

irljf 10y ago
I strongly disagree. The IC and PCB analogy is not accurate. The equivalent would be saying that computer scientists should not need to learn about ion traps and SQUIDs, and I would agree with that. Quantum algorithms, on the other hand, are just algorithms, albeit ones in which you are allowed an extra operation. While now may or may not be the time to introduce this into CS courses, quantum information processing will only become more important over time, rather than less. The argument about them never superseding classical computers isn't something that there is any real support for, except that it is hard to build QCs at the moment. The same could have been said for classical computers not that long ago. It's not clear from your answer whether you know this or not, but quantum computers can perform classical computation. So, this is like in the 40s saying that there would always be a roll for human computers or mechanical computers, while now we would think that was a ridiculous position given at how good we have gotten at making ICs.