NASA buys into Quantum Computer, Google using it for machine learning and artificial intelligence.
36 replies, posted
[IMG]http://static.gamesradar.com/images/mb/GamesRadar/us/Features/2011/03/ClassicRadar/Best%20videogame%20stories/Screens/portal_glados--article_image.jpg[/IMG]
The future is near.
[QUOTE=tarkata14;40667034]Quantum computers don't work like that, not yet at least. Currently they are most useful for massive number crunching and solving problems quickly, I wouldn't doubt quantum computing to stay on a R&D level for another 50 years, by which time Crysis would look like an atari game and we'd all be playing in hologram environments and shit.
[B]EDIT: [/B]Think of how the Computers we use everyday came into being. Once tape machines were developed into computers, they were really only useful for solving the problem they were made for, and not much else. Now later they developed ways to program for these simple computers to perform multiple tasks and work more efficiently. It eventually built up to almost every single electronic we see. The thing with quantum computing is that it is almost completely unknown territory, normal computers are just mechanical machines, whereas quantum mechanics works on an atomic level. The difference in speed is one thing to note, but with that comes a whole new complexity to working with such immense viable performance. I'm not being pessimistic, I'm seriously glad these guys are pooling their resources to research this, and it will certainly go a long way. It's just if you expect a personal quantum computer in the next 50 years, one that's compatible of emulating x32/x64 OSs no less, you're going to be dissapointed to find out that quantum computing is going to take a long while to get off the ground.[/QUOTE]Why do you say 50 years, I thought it was more like 20? The sooner we can get rid of the slow silicon crap we're now the better.
[QUOTE=GlebGuy;40666919]Well yeah, have you ever tried running it with a regular computer?[/QUOTE]
Yeah, last I heard, the site is still contaminated.
My computer didn't even have anything nuclear on it.
RIP HP desktop model 2003
[QUOTE=tarkata14;40667034]Quantum computers don't work like that, not yet at least. Currently they are most useful for massive number crunching and solving problems quickly, I wouldn't doubt quantum computing to stay on a R&D level for another 50 years, by which time Crysis would look like an atari game and we'd all be playing in hologram environments and shit.
[B]EDIT: [/B]Think of how the Computers we use everyday came into being. Once tape machines were developed into computers, they were really only useful for solving the problem they were made for, and not much else. Now later they developed ways to program for these simple computers to perform multiple tasks and work more efficiently. It eventually built up to almost every single electronic we see. The thing with quantum computing is that it is almost completely unknown territory, normal computers are just mechanical machines, whereas quantum mechanics works on an atomic level. The difference in speed is one thing to note, but with that comes a whole new complexity to working with such immense viable performance. I'm not being pessimistic, I'm seriously glad these guys are pooling their resources to research this, and it will certainly go a long way. It's just if you expect a personal quantum computer in the next 50 years, one that's compatible of emulating x32/x64 OSs no less, you're going to be dissapointed to find out that quantum computing is going to take a long while to get off the ground.[/QUOTE]
I agree with you up to the point where you said don't expect a personal quantum computer in 50 years. With the way our technology advances, I think we can accomplish much in 50 years. At least much quicker than we did from the first computer to now. Back then, there was little emphasis on developing computers. I think quantum computers are going to take off and accelerate us into a new era of electronics. Then again, maybe I'm just a believer.
[QUOTE=Zareox7;40691023]I agree with you up to the point where you said don't expect a personal quantum computer in 50 years. With the way our technology advances, I think we can accomplish much in 50 years. At least much quicker than we did from the first computer to now. Back then, there was little emphasis on developing computers. I think quantum computers are going to take off and accelerate us into a new era of electronics. Then again, maybe I'm just a believer.[/QUOTE]
I'm just saying don't hold your breath, quantum computing is still in a very very early stage.
[QUOTE=Eudoxia;40668728][URL=http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1400]Reality bursts the hype bubble again![/URL]
Emphasis mine.[/QUOTE]
You realise that is a D-Wave one while the one they installed is a D Wave Two which has 3x more cubits and has an entirely different architecture.
I mean, the D-Wave One was a proof of concept, the D-Wave Two is a monster.
[editline]18th May 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Fleskhjerta;40688559]I'm still not quite sure I understand quantum computing.
Give a new variable the value of 12
Set the value of the same variable to 25 for example.
But since qubits can take different values at the same time, what will the print(variable) output ?[/QUOTE]
On a simple level it can be in every position at once. So it could calculate every instruction at the [i]same time[/i].
Think of it like trying every single password thst could ever exist on 64 bits at the same time, that's a problem that has been addressed: Quantum algorithms makr security obsolete.
In your case, the moment you request an output, I assume it collapses on which one it is going to give you, while quantum superposition is only used for the calculations.
So you can't output both.
If you want to test how qubit programming could work, you could test the C++ qubit library: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxC8__H2Yg8[/media]
[url]http://www.bluedust.dontexist.com/qubit/[/url]
Since we don't have quantum computers, it's going to be a bit slow though.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.