3 ms·

I think AI and quantum computing are really the same thing, the difference being the same as girltalk in contrast with boytalk. what I'm saying is that there's

I think AI and quantum computing are really the same thing, the difference being the same as girltalk in contrast with boytalk. what I'm saying is that there's no quantum computing; but I actually mean to say I simply do not understand whatever 'quantum' means in the context of computing given my own opinions of what computing really is (I have a philosophical opinion). in my view (as distorted and twisted as it is), what quantum computing devices really do is sensing or measuring. computing is classical in nature and no amount of hand waving will change this. whatever happens to logic in a qubit? if both A and B are anything between 0 and 1, what's the negation of such a thing?

tux3 3y ago
>whatever happens to logic in a qubit? if both A and B are anything between 0 and 1, what's the negation of such a thing? The problem is the pop sci explanation where qbits are everything between 0 and 1 at the same time is super wrong and misleading. Your qbits are in states that have "amplitudes". You do things that change the amplitudes, and that happens to do computation. From the amplitudes of your qbits, you can figure out what the probabilities of observing different outcomes is. It's not that the qbit is anything between 0 and 1. It's in a precise state, that results in percentage probabilities for different outcomes. The negation of true 80% of the time is false 80% of the time.
- firtoz 3y ago
  To be fair, in some quantum computers, it does work. For example if you count a beam of photons following the same path with (almost) all possible polarization combinations as a qubit, that is indeed closer to "everything between", however it's got limited utility indeed when compared to the broader view.
gcr 3y ago
Apologies in advance—I don't know how to say this in a loving way, but I also don’t mean to pass judgment—couldn’t this just be a skill issue? Why not look into how quantum computing works and resolve that once and for all? https://quantum.country/ https://quantum.country/ is a pretty approachable starting point if you’re curious. The math is no more intimidating than any other skilled discipline.
- ysofunny 3y ago
  you can just say it, it's not worse than getting downvoted for having off colored opinions "aren't you just too stupid to understand?" maybe I am... maybe I just think differently with another brand of depth what I wonder now, given another comment about amplitudes, is what happens to combinatorics? (and alphabets, and languages as sequences of strings from finite alphabets) but it's just simpler to dismiss me as foolish idiot.
  - wegfawefgawefg 3y ago
    People responded with civility which, in retrospect, you may not have deserved.
firtoz 3y ago
Regarding the negation, you can consider it in a few different ways, depending on your use case. If your qubit is "all values", the negation is the lack of any value, e.g. "a measurement that results to 0". However, in most cases, you will have a segment within the possibilities. E.g. one qubit can hold "vertically polarised light at frequencies between X and Y at phase P", then the negation could be one of "horizontally polarised light at that frequency and phase", or, more common, same polarization and frequency but the phase is 180 degrees off P. That way, if you add them together, you get the cancellation. Another negation is "all other possible combinations". However I must note that when you call a qubit "all possible combinations" that's not a typical qubit value. Think of it like this, "binary" is "0 or 1", but a "binary value" is only one of either 0 or 1. A qubit value is, depending on your interpretation, photons of some polarisation, frequency and phase, or electrons of a particular spin, or some other combination of those. Some of those can have multiple combinations, for example a qubit value could be the combination of a bunch of photons at different values. Or, an electron with an "unknown spin". Or an electron with an unknown spin that's the complement of another electron at another unknown spin, but when you measure either you will reveal the other, and so on. So, only some qubit values will have "all possible combinations" i.e. "when observed, it could literally be anything". The internal of "what was the value before you observe it" is, well, controversial, and to most people, almost irrelevant, and even, "not good to consider".
wegfawefgawefg 3y ago
Im just as ignorant as you about it. The quantum part to me doesnt seem to matter. I don't see why its any fundamentally different from making a computer out of any other substrate. Light, sand, chemicals, at the end of the day you compute a function by following a set of steps which may or may not have constraints of seriality. I think von neumann cant handle purely parralel algorithms efficiently. Even gpus. I think thats whats where the "all qbits interacting simultaniously for n steps after being put in initial conditions" is about. Its purely parralel. It could be the case that information cant be extracted before it is computed, and that for some algorithms the peak efficiency serial version is equal to the best efficiency purely parralel version. It could also be the case thats not true and that classes of quantum algorithms could be better. At the end if the day the way i see it substrate is just an engineered means of applied ops per time.
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  The quantum part does matter in the sense that certain kinds of "maths" are not directly accessible in a classical computer. You can sort of simulate Shor's algorithm on a classical computer but you cannot get the same low complexity. Of course, whether the quantum computer uses substrate A or B doesn't matter (other than practically). The only way I ever found an access to understanding quantum computing is by doing the math, as other pop-sci explanations don't really reflect what is happening (at least for me).

tux3 3y ago

>whatever happens to logic in a qubit? if both A and B are anything between 0 and 1, what's the negation of such a thing? The problem is the pop sci explanation where qbits are everything between 0 and 1 at the same time is super wrong and misleading. Your qbits are in states that have "amplitudes". You do things that change the amplitudes, and that happens to do computation. From the amplitudes of your qbits, you can figure out what the probabilities of observing different outcomes is. It's not that the qbit is anything between 0 and 1. It's in a precise state, that results in percentage probabilities for different outcomes. The negation of true 80% of the time is false 80% of the time.

firtoz 3y ago
To be fair, in some quantum computers, it does work. For example if you count a beam of photons following the same path with (almost) all possible polarization combinations as a qubit, that is indeed closer to "everything between", however it's got limited utility indeed when compared to the broader view.

gcr 3y ago

Apologies in advance—I don't know how to say this in a loving way, but I also don’t mean to pass judgment—couldn’t this just be a skill issue? Why not look into how quantum computing works and resolve that once and for all? https://quantum.country/ https://quantum.country/ is a pretty approachable starting point if you’re curious. The math is no more intimidating than any other skilled discipline.

ysofunny 3y ago
you can just say it, it's not worse than getting downvoted for having off colored opinions "aren't you just too stupid to understand?" maybe I am... maybe I just think differently with another brand of depth what I wonder now, given another comment about amplitudes, is what happens to combinatorics? (and alphabets, and languages as sequences of strings from finite alphabets) but it's just simpler to dismiss me as foolish idiot.
- wegfawefgawefg 3y ago
  People responded with civility which, in retrospect, you may not have deserved.

firtoz 3y ago

Regarding the negation, you can consider it in a few different ways, depending on your use case. If your qubit is "all values", the negation is the lack of any value, e.g. "a measurement that results to 0". However, in most cases, you will have a segment within the possibilities. E.g. one qubit can hold "vertically polarised light at frequencies between X and Y at phase P", then the negation could be one of "horizontally polarised light at that frequency and phase", or, more common, same polarization and frequency but the phase is 180 degrees off P. That way, if you add them together, you get the cancellation. Another negation is "all other possible combinations". However I must note that when you call a qubit "all possible combinations" that's not a typical qubit value. Think of it like this, "binary" is "0 or 1", but a "binary value" is only one of either 0 or 1. A qubit value is, depending on your interpretation, photons of some polarisation, frequency and phase, or electrons of a particular spin, or some other combination of those. Some of those can have multiple combinations, for example a qubit value could be the combination of a bunch of photons at different values. Or, an electron with an "unknown spin". Or an electron with an unknown spin that's the complement of another electron at another unknown spin, but when you measure either you will reveal the other, and so on. So, only some qubit values will have "all possible combinations" i.e. "when observed, it could literally be anything". The internal of "what was the value before you observe it" is, well, controversial, and to most people, almost irrelevant, and even, "not good to consider".

wegfawefgawefg 3y ago

Im just as ignorant as you about it. The quantum part to me doesnt seem to matter. I don't see why its any fundamentally different from making a computer out of any other substrate. Light, sand, chemicals, at the end of the day you compute a function by following a set of steps which may or may not have constraints of seriality. I think von neumann cant handle purely parralel algorithms efficiently. Even gpus. I think thats whats where the "all qbits interacting simultaniously for n steps after being put in initial conditions" is about. Its purely parralel. It could be the case that information cant be extracted before it is computed, and that for some algorithms the peak efficiency serial version is equal to the best efficiency purely parralel version. It could also be the case thats not true and that classes of quantum algorithms could be better. At the end if the day the way i see it substrate is just an engineered means of applied ops per time.

RandomLensman 3y ago
The quantum part does matter in the sense that certain kinds of "maths" are not directly accessible in a classical computer. You can sort of simulate Shor's algorithm on a classical computer but you cannot get the same low complexity. Of course, whether the quantum computer uses substrate A or B doesn't matter (other than practically). The only way I ever found an access to understanding quantum computing is by doing the math, as other pop-sci explanations don't really reflect what is happening (at least for me).