Today IBM unveiled 2 new quantum computers, one called "Condor" is the
largest the company has ever made with 1121 Qubits, up from their 433 Qubit
machine that came out last year. The other machine called "Heron" only has
133 Qubits but has an error rate that is 5 ti
arily faster than the fastest of all possible classical algorithms.*
Yes nobody has proved it, nevertheless nearly every mathematician thinks
it's true and quantum computers can do things that conventional computers
can't. My intuition tells me the same thing, now that we know for sure that
w
tions,That’s because of the
relatively low resource requirements. This would be possible using
quantum computers with a relatively small number of qubits” /
Quantum computers: what are they good for?
<https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01692-9?utm_source=Nature+Briefing_campaign=d1
ource requirements. This would be possible using quantum computers with
a relatively small number of qubits” *
Quantum computers: what are they good for?
<https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01692-9?utm_source=Nature+Briefing_campaign=d128e37f03-briefing-dy-20230525_medium=email_term=0_c9
What we need are not the algorithms, but the ice-cold machinery, coupled with
AI to make the quantum leap technologically. Quantum computing is said to kick
large errors along with faster processing.
Breakthrough in quantum error correction could lead to large-scale quantum
computers
https
th N
elements in which the time required to solve increases as N gets larger as
X^N, not N^X). The P=NP question is perhaps the greatest unsolved problem
in all of mathematics; if despite everybody's expectations it turns out
that P really is equal to NP and if the algorithm could be found then it'
On 5/14/2023 4:41 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, May 13, 2023 at 8:12 PM Brent Meeker
wrote:
/> It won't be a big deal because, so far, quantum computers have
only a very small domain where they are superior. And even if they
were a million times faster across the board, i
al Nature that that went online yesterday:
Physicists create virtual nonabelions for fault-tolerant quantum computers
<https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01574-0?utm_source=Nature+Briefing_campaign=c182f988e0-briefing-dy-20230510_medium=email_term=0_c9dfd39373-c182f988e0-44221073&
gt; As if all the news about GPT-4 were not enough, this is an article from
>> the journal Nature that that went online yesterday:
>>
>> Physicists create virtual nonabelions for fault-tolerant quantum computers
>> <https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01574-0?utm_sour
all the news about GPT-4 were not enough, this is an article from
> the journal Nature that that went online yesterday:
>
> Physicists create virtual nonabelions for fault-tolerant quantum computers
> <https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01574-0?utm_source=Nature+Briefing_c
As if all the news about GPT-4 were not enough, this is an article from the
journal Nature that that went online yesterday:
Physicists create virtual nonabelions for fault-tolerant quantum computers
<https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01574-0?utm_source=Nature+Briefing_campaign=c182f98
Perhaps this explains what has occurred better than I have:
Scientists are one step closer to error-correcting quantum computers
<https://www.sciencenews.org/article/quantum-computer-error-correction-multiple-qubits-detect-mistakes>
John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at Extropolis
:58:50 AM UTC-5 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
> The difficulty in maintaining quantum coherence is the only reason we
> don't have practical quantum computers today, but Monday's issue of the
> journal Nature reported on a major advance in solving that problem. For
> the first time it has
A hybrid computing future is most likely.
-Original Message-
From: 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, Oct 6, 2021 6:10 pm
Subject: Re: Quantum Computers
On 10/6/2021 4:58 AM, John Clark wrote:
The difficulty in maintaining quantum
le but it would sure be
hard as hell, and I doubt it would run perfectly the first time it was
actually tried out on a real computer.
> ..*.and even there "faster" means in the limit of large problem size, not
> necessarily in realistic problem sizes. *
>
All the appli
versa?"
-Original Message-
From: John Clark
To: 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
Sent: Wed, Oct 6, 2021 7:58 am
Subject: Quantum Computers
The difficulty in maintaining quantum coherence is the only reason we don't
have practical quantum computers today, but Monday's issue of the journ
On 10/6/2021 4:58 AM, John Clark wrote:
The difficulty in maintaining quantum coherence is the only reason we
don't have practical quantum computers today,
Well there is also the fact that there are only about two dozen
problems for which there is a known quantum algorithm faster than
The difficulty in maintaining quantum coherence is the only reason we don't
have practical quantum computers today, but Monday's issue of the journal
Nature reported on a major advance in solving that problem. For the first
time it has been proven that a quantum error correcting code called
to measure the energy of a Qubit, and
> that is the most fundamental thing quantum computers do. Normally this is
> done by measuring the voltage induced by the Qubit, but this requires a lot
> of large amplification circuitry which makes scaling up to more Qubits
> very difficult, and the circuitry pro
tps://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2753-3>
This could be very important to anyone who wants to make a quantum computer
because you could use it to measure the energy of a Qubit, and that is the
most fundamental thing quantum computers do. Normally this is done by
measuring the voltage i
11:40 am
Subject: Re: Quantum Computers
On 20 Apr 2020, at 03:09, spudboy100 via Everything List
wrote:
Now all is has to do is work far better than digital computing.
Quantum computing is still digital computing.
A Quantum Computer does not violate the Church-Turing thesis, and it
n
cognitive science, as any piece of matter is “made of” (“emerges on”)
infinitely many computations.
In my opinion, quantum computers will exist, but that might take a long time. I
agree with Clark that eventually that will be a machine using quantum
topological qubits, and t
Now all is has to do is work far better than digital computing.
-Original Message-
From: John Clark
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, Apr 16, 2020 4:59 pm
Subject: Quantum Computers
In today's issue of the journal Nature there is a article about a Silicon based
Quantum
pretty cold
> but previous Silicon based Quantum Computers, the type corporate investors
> like best, needed 0.01 degrees Kelvin. Compared with that 1.25 is
> blistering hot.
>
> Universal quantum logic in hot silicon qubits
> <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-
In today's issue of the journal Nature there is a article about a Silicon
based Quantum Computer that operates at temperatures as high as 1.25
degrees Kelvin with an error rate of only 0.7%. That may seem pretty cold
but previous Silicon based Quantum Computers, the type corporate investors
like
on's loop around each other their quantum state is
altered and so that brading can be used to encode information. Such brading
would be far less susceptible to quantum decoherence than other ways of
encoding information, and decoherence is the only reason we don't have
practical and scalable Quantum
On Sunday, April 12, 2020 at 2:06:00 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
>
>> Nonabelian anyons have a braid group structure.
>
> LC
>
>
>> Anyons in topological QM:
Topological Quantum: Lecture Notes
http://www-thphys.physics.ox.ac.uk/people/SteveSimon/topological2016/TopoBook.pdf
ecoherence is the only reason we
> don't have practical and scalable Quantum Computers right now.
>
>
>
> I agree. I guess you mean braiding, like the space time description of two
> particles going around each other, or around a third one, leading to a
> braid (in
other their quantum state
> is altered and so that brading can be used to encode information. Such
> brading would be far less susceptible to quantum decoherence than other ways
> of encoding information, and decoherence is the only reason we don't have
> practical and scalable Quantum Comput
nformation. Such
brading would be far less susceptible to quantum decoherence than
other ways of encoding information, and decoherence is the only reason we
don't have practical and scalable Quantum Computers right now.
Fractional statistics in anyon collisions
<https://science.sciencemag.org/content
On Friday, January 17, 2020 at 1:11:41 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, January 17, 2020 at 12:04:48 AM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, January 15, 2020 at 2:11:45 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote:
>>>
>>>
On Friday, January 17, 2020 at 12:04:48 AM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, January 15, 2020 at 2:11:45 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> The Hype Over Quantum Computers, Explained
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1XXjWr5frE>
>>
&g
On Wednesday, January 15, 2020 at 2:11:45 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote:
>
> The Hype Over Quantum Computers, Explained
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1XXjWr5frE>
>
> John K Clark
>
The key thing I don't understand about quantum computers is this; if you
have a q
The Hype Over Quantum Computers, Explained
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1XXjWr5frE>
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 i
nd the reach of the combined
> set PH = {P, NP}
>
> Chris
>
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Brent Meeker
> > wrote:
>
>
>
> Forwarded Message
>
>
>
> https://www.quantamagazine.org/finally-a-problem-that-only-quantum-co
True, but as you mentioned, and we are in agreement this is a fundamentally new
class of problem. Whether it turns out to be of practical utility or remains as
an interesting oddball is yet to be determined.Chris
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 1:42 PM, John Clark
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 9:20 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> The birth of a fundamentally distinct new class of problems.
> BQP has carved out a realm of its own... beyond the reach of the combined
> set PH = {P, NP}
>
This new
://www.quantamagazine.org/finally-a-problem-that-only-quantum-computers-will-ever-be-able-to-solve-20180621/
ref: https://eccc.weizmann.ac.il/report/2018/107/ ...
Here’s the problem. Imagine you have two random number generators, each
producing a sequence of digits. The question for your computer
Forwarded Message
https://www.quantamagazine.org/finally-a-problem-that-only-quantum-computers-will-ever-be-able-to-solve-20180621/
ref: https://eccc.weizmann.ac.il/report/2018/107/
...
/Here’s the problem. Imagine you have two random number generators, each
producing
On Sun, Feb 07, 2016 at 12:33:24PM -0500, John Clark wrote:
>
> 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
>
I am halted (halting problem) on the nanotechnology is as big a revolution
statement. We have no K. Eric Drexler revolution, so far. What we do have,
emerging out of no where is 3D manufacturing. If you can actually make quantum
computers, or hybrid quantum computing, I say, faster please. I'd
o 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 ha
On 2/3/2016 2:34 PM, John Clark wrote:
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
You're right I'm wrong, the Quantum factoring algorithm was found by Peter
Shor.
John K Clark
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 6:20 PM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
> On 2/3/2016 2:34 PM, John Clark wrote:
>
> A recent paper in Nature Communications gives more ev
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
There is a important paper in today's journal Nature on error correction
that would be needed to make Quantum Computers practical. Although they
still can't protect individual Qubits they could protect the entanglement
of 3 or more particles (the Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger state) and they
could
Time: 2013-02-04, 11:43:07
Subject: Re: multiverses and quantum computers
On 01 Feb 2013, at 19:26, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno,
I can't see that superposition of states is any more magical
in one universe than, say, multiple roots to an equation, or imaginary
numbers. What matters
-
From: Telmo Menezes
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-31, 08:13:30
Subject: Re: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in
Space
Hi Roger,
In the one universe model, where does the extra computational
power of quantum computers come from?
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:09 PM
) between Plato, computer
science and physics.
Bruno
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-02-04, 11:43:07
Subject: Re: multiverses and quantum computers
On 01 Feb 2013, at 19:26, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno,
I can't see
:* 2013-01-31, 08:13:30
*Subject:* Re: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Hi Roger,
In the one universe model, where does the extra computational power of
quantum computers come from?
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.netwrote:
Hi Telmo
reason. And there is an
abyss of complexity between those two kind of reasons.
Bruno
- Receiving the following content -
From: Telmo Menezes
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-02-01, 03:46:32
Subject: Re: multiverses and quantum computers
Hi Bruno,
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4
in Space
Hi Roger,
In the one universe model, where does the extra computational
power of quantum computers come from?
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Roger Clough
rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Telmo Menezes
IMHO more than one universe is unjustified.
- Receiving the following
:* Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
*Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Time:* 2013-01-31, 08:13:30
*Subject:* Re: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Hi Roger,
In the one universe model, where does the extra computational power of
quantum
in Space
Hi Roger,
In the one universe model, where does the extra computational power of
quantum computers come from?
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.netwrote:
Hi Telmo Menezes
IMHO more than one universe is unjustified.
- Receiving the following
@googlegroups.com
*Time:* 2013-01-31, 08:13:30
*Subject:* Re: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Hi Roger,
In the one universe model, where does the extra computational power of
quantum computers come from?
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.netwrote
computational power of
quantum computers come from?
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Roger Clough
rcl...@verizon.netjavascript:
wrote:
Hi Telmo Menezes
IMHO more than one universe is unjustified.
- Receiving the following content -
*From:* Telmo Menezes javascript
On 2/2/2013 2:43 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 8:39 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/1/2013 12:46 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Hi Bruno,
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
:* 2013-01-31, 08:13:30
*Subject:* Re: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Hi Roger,
In the one universe model, where does the extra computational power of
quantum computers come from?
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Telmo
the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Hi Roger,
In the one universe model, where does the extra computational power
of quantum computers come from?
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net
wrote:
Hi Telmo Menezes
IMHO more than one universe is unjustified
compounded for.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-02-01, 12:11:55
Subject: Re: multiverses and quantum computers
On 01 Feb 2013, at 09:46, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Hi Bruno,
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-02-01, 03:46:32
Subject: Re: multiverses and quantum computers
Hi Bruno,
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:15, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Telmo Menezes
Perhaps you're right, but to my limited
Repetition of Histories in Space
Hi Roger,
In the one universe model, where does the extra computational power of
quantum
computers come from?
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net
mailto:rclo...@verizon.net wrote
:13:30
Subject: Re: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Hi Roger,
In the one universe model, where does the extra computational power of quantum
computers come from?
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Telmo Menezes
IMHO more than
, 08:13:30
Subject: Re: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Hi Roger,
In the one universe model, where does the extra computational power
of quantum computers come from?
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net
wrote:
Hi Telmo Menezes
IMHO more
64 matches
Mail list logo
