2 ms·

I believe that quantum oracles are more powerful than Turing oracles, because quantum oracles can be constructed, from what I understand, and Turing oracles nee

by thesz 7mo ago

I believe that quantum oracles are more powerful than Turing oracles, because quantum oracles can be constructed, from what I understand, and Turing oracles need infinite tape. Our brains use quantum computation within each neuron [1]. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-62539-5 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-62539-5

vidarh 7mo ago
There's no evidence to suggest a quantum computer exceeds the Turing computable.
- thesz 7mo ago
  The difference is quantum oracles can be constructed [1] and Turing oracle can't be [2]: "An oracle machine or o-machine is a Turing a-machine that pauses its computation at state "o" while, to complete its calculation, it "awaits the decision" of "the oracle"—an entity unspecified by Turing "apart from saying that it cannot be a machine" (Turing (1939)." [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.14959 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_machine
  - vidarh 7mo ago
    This is meaningless. A Turing machine is defined in terms of state transitions. Between those state transitions, there is a pause in computation at any point where the operations takes time. Those pauses are just not part of the definition because they are irrelevant to the computational outcome. And given we have no evidence that quantum oracles exceeds the Turing computable, all the evidence we have suggests that they are Turing machines.
    - thesz 7mo ago
      > This is meaningless. Turing machines grew from the constructive mathematics [1], where proofs are constructions of the objects or, in other words, algorithms to compute them. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_(philosophy_of_mathematics)#Constructive_mathematics Saying that there is no difference between things that can be constructed (quantum oracles) and things that are given and cannot be constructed (Turing oracles - they are not even machines of any sort) is a direct refutation of the very base of the Turing machine theoretical base.
deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]

by thesz 7mo ago

vidarh 7mo ago

There's no evidence to suggest a quantum computer exceeds the Turing computable.

thesz 7mo ago
The difference is quantum oracles can be constructed [1] and Turing oracle can't be [2]: "An oracle machine or o-machine is a Turing a-machine that pauses its computation at state "o" while, to complete its calculation, it "awaits the decision" of "the oracle"—an entity unspecified by Turing "apart from saying that it cannot be a machine" (Turing (1939)." [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.14959 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_machine
- vidarh 7mo ago
  This is meaningless. A Turing machine is defined in terms of state transitions. Between those state transitions, there is a pause in computation at any point where the operations takes time. Those pauses are just not part of the definition because they are irrelevant to the computational outcome. And given we have no evidence that quantum oracles exceeds the Turing computable, all the evidence we have suggests that they are Turing machines.
  - thesz 7mo ago
    > This is meaningless. Turing machines grew from the constructive mathematics [1], where proofs are constructions of the objects or, in other words, algorithms to compute them. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_(philosophy_of_mathematics)#Constructive_mathematics Saying that there is no difference between things that can be constructed (quantum oracles) and things that are given and cannot be constructed (Turing oracles - they are not even machines of any sort) is a direct refutation of the very base of the Turing machine theoretical base.

deleted 7mo ago

[deleted]