Comments for Observations on Quantum Computing & Physics http://wavewatching.net Mon, 20 Jun 2016 05:32:23 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.1.12 Comment on Canadian PM Justin Trudeau talks Quantum Computing by Quax http://wavewatching.net/2016/04/15/canadian-pm-justin-trudeau-talkes-quantum-computing/#comment-82902 Mon, 20 Jun 2016 05:32:23 +0000 http://wavewatching.net/?p=3679#comment-82902 Hi Popeye,

nice to see that you are still around :-)

I haven’t been following this much any more, too many other interesting things to work on.

Will think about it.

]]>
Comment on Canadian PM Justin Trudeau talks Quantum Computing by popeye http://wavewatching.net/2016/04/15/canadian-pm-justin-trudeau-talkes-quantum-computing/#comment-82901 Tue, 14 Jun 2016 21:24:14 +0000 http://wavewatching.net/?p=3679#comment-82901 I don’t know if you noticed: the ecatnews admin is shutting the site down (again). Maybe you should go over and invite the remaining participants to your fringe again…. Better still, check with paul story about taking over the domain, or register ecatnews2 or something.

]]>
Comment on Canadian PM Justin Trudeau talks Quantum Computing by Henning Dekant http://wavewatching.net/2016/04/15/canadian-pm-justin-trudeau-talkes-quantum-computing/#comment-82899 Thu, 21 Apr 2016 18:39:24 +0000 http://wavewatching.net/?p=3679#comment-82899 Thanks Rolf. The Syruptrap take on it is hilarious :-)

]]>
Comment on Canadian PM Justin Trudeau talks Quantum Computing by Rolf http://wavewatching.net/2016/04/15/canadian-pm-justin-trudeau-talkes-quantum-computing/#comment-82898 Wed, 20 Apr 2016 16:23:47 +0000 http://wavewatching.net/?p=3679#comment-82898 Here are links to a couple of other takes on Justin Trudeau’s QC video.

http://syruptrap.ca/2016/04/delirious-exhausted-justin-trudeau-still-explaining-quantum-computing-to-journalists/

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/Justin-Trudeau-quantum-computing

]]>
Comment on D-Wave – Fast Enough to Win my Bet? by Nikos Pitsianis http://wavewatching.net/2015/12/13/d-wave-fast-enough-to-win-my-bet/#comment-82885 Thu, 24 Dec 2015 01:19:45 +0000 http://wavewatching.net/?p=3658#comment-82885 Kidding aside, the Google/D-Wave manuscript that you characterise as ‘big news’ states in the abstract:

[…] the D-Wave 2X quantum annealer achieves significant runtime advantages relative to Simulated Annealing (SA). For instances with 945 variables this results in a time-to-99%- success-probability that is ∼ 10^8 times faster than SA running on a single processor core.

The above, in my simple mind, translates to: A purpose built analog device is 100M times faster than a digital computer simulating that analog device. Please correct me if I am wrong.

The property to be able to map encodings of general problem instances is necessary, –you are absolutely right– but it is not sufficient. You also have to solve those problems as well.

I do not think there is a computational scientist who wouldn’t want to have a machine to solve, say, Quadratic Assignment Problems millions of times faster than in conventional computers.

But there was nowhere in the news any information that we are now closer to such a feat.

]]>
Comment on D-Wave – Fast Enough to Win my Bet? by Henning Dekant http://wavewatching.net/2015/12/13/d-wave-fast-enough-to-win-my-bet/#comment-82884 Wed, 23 Dec 2015 23:29:00 +0000 http://wavewatching.net/?p=3658#comment-82884 Nikos, I strongly suggest you write that paper and see if it will pass Nature’s peer review. Don’t be discouraged if it doesn’t at first. Just re-write it and try it again and again. At the same time you should try to see if you can attract venture capital for your idea. I am sure you already have a concept of how to encode general problems into your feather motion model.

The world will be your oyster.

]]>
Comment on D-Wave – Fast Enough to Win my Bet? by Nikos Pitsianis http://wavewatching.net/2015/12/13/d-wave-fast-enough-to-win-my-bet/#comment-82883 Wed, 23 Dec 2015 20:15:19 +0000 http://wavewatching.net/?p=3658#comment-82883 I have built a beautiful and complex mobile with feathers, cane and string, similar to the ones Alexander Calder made. If I were to simulate its motion by a digital computer, the computer will be 100 million times slower because of the very fine details of the feather motions.

Shall I write an article about my mobile being 100 million times faster than a digital computer and submit it to Nature?

]]>
Comment on D-Wave – Fast Enough to Win my Bet? by Henning Dekant http://wavewatching.net/2015/12/13/d-wave-fast-enough-to-win-my-bet/#comment-82880 Wed, 16 Dec 2015 02:10:20 +0000 http://wavewatching.net/?p=3658#comment-82880 It is a rare occurrence that somebody is aware of their own bias. For the CS camp this is all about the fundamental quantum speed-up, anything less than that is considered a non-event or worse a cheapening of the pure quantum computing quest, whereas D-Wave pragmatically decided to go for a lower hanging fruit, and see how much mileage you can get out of qubits designed to be good enough for annealing.

In a sense the two camps never even agreed on the nature of their disagreement.

]]>
Comment on D-Wave – Fast Enough to Win my Bet? by Ramsey (@Ramsey981) http://wavewatching.net/2015/12/13/d-wave-fast-enough-to-win-my-bet/#comment-82879 Wed, 16 Dec 2015 01:58:52 +0000 http://wavewatching.net/?p=3658#comment-82879 I’m a rabid D-wave fan but I’m making a bet, what is annoying are those on the other camp, who trash and pretend they are not taking sides and just defending science (they may not be even aware of their own bias). Oh please, what load ;-) Let’s face it, in part this is a race, and it creates competition and excitement. If D-Wave lose I would definitely feel bad about it but it’s no different feeling than losing my team in a hockey game, give me a day and I will move on. In the end you have to respect the outcome whatever it may be because this is all for science where everybody should be.

]]>
Comment on D-Wave – Fast Enough to Win my Bet? by MIL Deb in Ohio http://wavewatching.net/2015/12/13/d-wave-fast-enough-to-win-my-bet/#comment-82878 Mon, 14 Dec 2015 09:25:51 +0000 http://wavewatching.net/?p=3658#comment-82878 Mmm…maple syrup! One of the four food groups–now all you need is some spaghetti to put it on! Well, as you know, I’m not a physicist, nor do I understand anything about how quantum computing actually works. But…I gotta tell you that the graph’s visuals make D Wave look bad. There has to be a better way of graphing the results to show that the lower graph line is the superior outcome. The impact of seeing D Wave’s line moseying across the bottom while the others soar above makes a bad first impression until you actually read the comments and the y axis label. As a non-scientist (but one with a communications degree), I am prompted to ask if there’s another graph style that might have more positive visual impact. Just wondering.

]]>