4 ms·
You're not modeling or predicting anything though. That's like saying "what if I built a bridge that failed on the first day? A computer would need several days
by robot_no_421 3y ago
You're not modeling or predicting anything though. That's like saying "what if I built a bridge that failed on the first day? A computer would need several days to calculate all the forces that led to the failure, but my bridge failed just fine without any computer help".
Well... yes. But try building a bridge that doesn't break.
Or to keep with your scenario, try to predict exactly where and how your stick will break before you break it. You can't.
- ori_b 3y agoDoes Google's implementation of quantum computing help with this sort of scenario, or is it a really fancy way of breaking the bridge?
- robot_no_421 3y agoYes, and no. Don't ask me rhetorical questions if you don't want a rhetorical answer.
- __MatrixMan__ 3y agoWell you don't have to sacrifice any sticks or bridges to see what happens, so that's a plus. One could imagine stimulating experiments that are implausible to actually perform.
- ori_b 3y agoYes, but that's nothing new -- we've had computers that were used to solve simulations faster than digital comuters could by setting up electronic (or hydraulic, or pneumatic) parts that simulated the terms of the differential equations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_computer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_computer Is this quantum computer another iteration on the same concept, or is it solving things that are polynomially harder to simulate classically?