3 ms·

I don't think you understand why quantum computers are powerful.

• adamnemecek 9y ago
  I do actually, but analog computers are potentially even more powerful. Quantum computers have bits and you don't want those. Also when I say quantum I really mean digital quantum computer, I still have to decide what to think of quantum analog computers.
  • akvadrako 9y ago
    An ideal 1000 qubit system can explore 10^300 solutions simultaneously. A classical analog computer achieving a similar speedup would be larger than the visible universe (10^30 m) with precision below the planck length (10^-35 m). Unlikely.
    • adamnemecek 9y ago
      They they are orthogonal. Digital/Analog vs Non-quantum/Quantum. You can have quantum analog. Note that analog is a better match since quanta are fundamentally analog and you loose all this info when going to bits. That's the thing, it can solve a lot of computations at the same time however an analog computer can recognize the direction of the solution therefore the number of simultaneous solutions doesn't really matter.
      • akvadrako 9y ago
        I agree they are orthogonal, but that does nothing to support the point that analog computers could be even more powerful than quantum computers. You haven't really explained your second point, but assuming it's true, you'll only be able to "recognize the direction" within your margin of error. Your noise floor will be way above the required precision to explore a high-dimensional space. Analog computers never achieved common use because of noise and lack of practical error correction. Even the human brain evolved to be mostly digital and we almost never focus on being exact.
        • adamnemecek 9y ago
          Can you like google around please? What I'm saying isn't as unsupported as you seem to believe. You are talking about electric analog, I'm talking about photonic analog. How is the brain mostly digital?