3 ms·
I still don't see how it's at all reasonable to claim that a device which is proven to execute computation using quantum effects is "not a quantum computer". It
by core-questions 7y ago
I still don't see how it's at all reasonable to claim that a device which is proven to execute computation using quantum effects is "not a quantum computer". It's "not a quantum gate model computer", sure, but such things are presently vaporware, so why should they get to claim the term?
To me you sound like an abacus fan who is waiting for Big Abacus to release an even bigger model, while Turing is labouring away with silly gears and cogs that you see no value in.
- kragen 7y agoAs I explained above, we already have a term for "a device which is proven to execute computation using quantum effects"; we call it a "computer". All practical computers (since the transition from vacuum tubes to transistors, and arguably before that) depend on quantum effects for their computation. Transistor action is a quantum-mechanical effect, which is why the Boltzmann constant pops up in the middle of the Ebers–Moll equation. Please do not resort to personal attacks on this site. Your repeated insulting remarks do not rise to the standards of behavior we attempt to maintain here.