On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 11:52 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List < [email protected]> wrote:
> > I am halted (halting problem) on the nanotechnology is as big a revolution > statement. We have no K. Eric Drexler revolution, so far. True, but we have had no Drexler style revolution either, *so far*. A Drexler revolution is just a matter of time because we have an existence proof (life) that there are no laws of physics that forbid it. The situation is different with Quantum Computers, although no known law of physics forbids large Quantum Computers we have no existence proof of one and some physicists think a law forbidding them will be found in the future. As of today there is no sign of such a law but we won't know for sure that a law forbidding them doesn't exist until somebody actually builds a large Quantum Computer. Quantum Computer expert Scott AAronson says things would be more interesting if it turns out that quantum computers are impossible because then we'd learn something new, everything we know about quantum mechanics up to now says Quantum Computers should be possible. Of course if to the surprise of nearly all mathematicians it turns out that P is equal to NP and if somebody devises an algorithm based on that fact then you wouldn't need a Quantum Computer, a conventional computer would do just as well. But I'd give 50 to one odds that P is not equal to NP. John K Clark > What we do have, emerging out of no where is* 3D manufacturin*g. If you > can actually make quantum computers, or hybrid quantum computing, I say, > faster please. I'd wish to use it first for conbinatorial chemistry to make > new and better pharma for medical treatments and cures. Big pharma may be > the ones who have the cash and motivation to fund quantum computers, too! > > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Clark <[email protected]> > To: everything-list <[email protected]> > Sent: Wed, Feb 3, 2016 5:34 pm > Subject: Quantum Computers > > A recent paper in Nature Communications gives more evidence that > Quantum Computers might produce as big a revolution as > Nanotechnology, Seth Lloyd, Silvano Garnerone and Paolo Zanardi have found > a Quantum algorithms for the topological analysis of data: > http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2016/160125/ncomms10138/full/ncomms10138.html > Seth Lloyd, the man who found the Quantum factoring algorithm some years > back says "In a topological description, basic features of the data (How > many holes does it have? How are the different parts connected?) are > considered the same no matter how much they are stretched, compressed, or > distorted. It is often these fundamental topological attributes that are > important in trying to reconstruct the underlying patterns in the real > world > that the data are supposed to represent. It doesn’t matter what kind of > data set is being analyzed. The topological approach of looking for > connections and holes works whether it’s an actual physical hole, or the > data represents a logical argument and there’s a hole in the argument. This > will find both kinds of holes.” > But Lloyd says the topological approach is too demanding for conventional > computers "Topological analysis represents a crucial way of getting at the > significant features of the data, but it’s computationally very expensive. > This is where quantum mechanics kicks in. The new quantum-based approach > could exponentially speed up such calculations." Lloyd gives this example: > "If you have a data set with 300 points, a conventional approach to > analyzing all the topological features in that system would require a > computer the size of the universe. That is, it would take 2300 (two to the > 300th power) processing units — approximately the number of all the > particles in the universe. In other words, the problem is simply not > solvable in that way. That’s where our algorithm kicks in. Solving the same > problem with the new system, using a quantum computer, would require just > 300 quantum bits — and a device this size may be achieved in the next few > years. Our algorithm shows that you don’t need a big quantum computer to > kick some serious topological butt.” > John K Clark > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
