4 ms·
I think it's time someone had the talk with you: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/the-talk-3 https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/the-talk-3 Quantum computing do
by chowells 5y ago
I think it's time someone had the talk with you: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/the-talk-3 https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/the-talk-3
Quantum computing doesn't do what you think it does.
- oh_sigh 5y agoNot so coincidentally, Scott is the first person quoted in OP's article, as well as the co-author of that comic.
- thewakalix 5y ago“The Blog of Scott Aaronson If you take nothing else from this blog: quantum computers won't solve hard problems instantly by just trying all solutions in parallel.”
- sova 5y agoOnly a madman would try all possible "solutions."
- bobbylarrybobby 5y agoAlso, even if it did, that wouldn’t change the status of P=NP, which is a statement about problems computed by classical Turing machines
- sova 5y ago>a statement about problems computed by classical Turing machines Are we out of tape already?
- scottcodie 5y agoHe's just stating that there could be an equivalence class that could get us closer to P=NP and it doesn't have to be computable. The complexity class he mentions is `P^(NP[k])`, 'P With k NP Queries(for constant k)'.
- sova 5y agoRock n roll dude. Suggest that Tiger Woods can get a hole in one every time and people attack you as if you had questioned their fundamental religious beliefs. Ramanujan created an approximating function for pi in 1904 and nobody knows how it works. Packed with factorials to the gills. It's not like the digits of pi are a secret to be computed every time and to try and snag a spare computation cycle here and there -- they are what they are. And finding a pattern comes down not to the self-evident information, but to the method.
- bawolff 5y agoI'm pretty sure you're being downvoted because you're being incoherent, not because of anything you've suggested.
- bawolff 5y agoI have no idea how you could have possibly got that from anything Sova wrote. Nothing they wrote seems to remotely resemble that.
- scottcodie 5y agoI'm just trying to be helpful. :(
- bawolff 5y agoI apologize. I could have (and should have) wrote that comment in a way that was less confrontational.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- hinoki 5y agoAnd even if it did, P=NP is based on a model of computation. So even if there is a proof of P=NP with quantum computers, that could still leave the question open on classical computers.
- sova 5y agoNow that's a notion I do not often hear. Maybe a question for a 3D-abacus made of stones and flowing water.
- bawolff 5y ago> So even if there is a proof of P=NP with quantum computers That doesn't really even make sense as a sentence. A quantum computer is neither a Turing machine nor a non-deterministic Turing machine. I guess what you're trying to say is that even if someone proved/disproved BQP=NP it would leave P=NP open.
- sova 5y ago"A new ontological category"... more like multiple golf balls competing for the same hole. "Choreographing interference patterns" would not actually further computation, but simply suggest a new set of tools that could be, by accident or happenstance, calibrated to produce results where other devices could not. Is that your point?