Ace T'Ken

Yeah, it’s a pretty dumb slang.

You know some people say they have an automatic reaction to the word “moist”? I have that with the slang above.

You sound exactly like the kind of person I want in my community: !actual_discussion@lemmy.ca

Check the sidebar to see if it suits you too!

You sound exactly like the kind of person I want in my community: !actual_discussion@lemmy.ca

Check the sidebar to see if it suits you too!

The part that doesn’t make sense is how a guess on a QC in a binary is any better than a scientist just guessing an outcome from a binary. Yeah, it can do it a lot, but if you can’t test the outcome to verify if it’s correct or not, how is it better than any other way of guessing outcomes?

Statistically, it absolutely isn’t. Even if it continually narrows things down via guesses, it’s still no more valuable than any other guesses. Because in all the whitepapers I’ve seen, it’s not calculating anything because it can’t. It’s simply assuming that one option is correct.

In the real world, it’s not a calculation and it doesn’t assist in… anything really. It’s no better than a random number generator assigning those numbers to a result. I don’t get the utility other than potentially breaking numerical cryptography.

So that’s the part that gets me stuck. There is no clear answer and it has no way to check the result as QC aren’t capable of doing so (otherwise they wouldn’t be using QC since they can only be based on binary inputs and binary guesses of true / false outcomes on a massive scale). How can it decide that it is “correct” and that the task is completed?

Computations based on guesses of true / false can only be so accurate with no way to check the result in the moment.

Well, I love being wrong! Are you able to show a documented quantum experiment that was carried out on a quantum computer (and not an emulator using a traditional architecture)?

How about a use case that isn’t simply for breaking encryption, benchmarking, or something deeply theoretical that they have no way to know how to actually program for or use in the real world?

I’m not requesting these proofs to be snarky, but simply because I’ve never seen anything else beyond what I listed.

When I see all the large corporations mentioning the processing power of these things, they’re simply mentioning how many times they can get an emulated tied bit to flip, and then claiming grandiose things for investors. That’s pretty much it. To me, that’s fraudulent (or borderline) corporate BS.

Yeah, most quantum science at the moment is largely fraudulent. It’s not just Microsoft. It’s being developed because it’s being taught in business schools as the next big thing, not because anybody has any way to use it.

Any of the “quantum computers” you see in the news are nothing more than press releases about corporate emulators functioning how they think it might work if it did work, but it’s far too slow to be used for anything.