Author: Lieven Clarisse
Date: 14:32:19 10/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 25, 2002 at 17:19:23, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On October 25, 2002 at 16:36:50, Robin Smith wrote: > >It is nonsense to see postings as: "how fast will my DIEP run >on a quantum computer". > >Let's say i first look forward to run on a 512 processor SGI >machine from NWO at world champs in Graz, november 2003, if i >can get the system time for the full machine that is... > >For the coming so many years no chessprogram will have equal power >in a single cpu, even if that's a hardware cpu :) > >But for the speed of computers, if it is true that hardware gets >each 2 years about 2 times faster. Then in 2066 we will be capable >of getting 10^40 clocks system time. That's quite a lot. > >But that makes the prediction that a quantum computer seeing 10^100 >or similar amounts of things at a glance, has to wait for another >250 years. So that'll be around the year 2300. > You know why they call it a quantum computer? Because it doesnt work like a classical computer. Essentialy processes can be handled in parallel on a *single* processor. So pleeeaaase don't invoke More's law, or whatever they call it in predicting anything about a qc. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/QuantumComputing.php quantum computing is NOT just classical computing in miniature, it is a whole different way of dealing with things... >Get my point? > >Best regards, >Vincent > >>On October 25, 2002 at 14:42:14, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On October 25, 2002 at 14:14:00, Robin Smith wrote: >>> >>>>On October 25, 2002 at 13:15:50, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>> >>>>> can you show me >>>>>a picture of a quantum. That's the smallest detail you could show of course. >>>> >>>>Vincent you are a funny guy. This had me laughing out loud. You were joking, >>>>right? >>>> >>>>Robin >>> >>>No. >>> >>>Can you show me a picture of a quantum? >>> >>>I *can* show you a picture of a real processor. Plenty of them >>>around the net. I can't show you the picture of a quantum. >>> >>>Can you? >>> >>>The things exist for like 1/1000000000000 of a second. >>> >>>How do we create a computer from it if we can't make a clear picture of >>>a quantum? >> >>Sorry. I thought you were joking. >> >>You are right that you can show me a picture of a real processor. But show me a >>picture of a "bit", or even of an "electron". You can't. So how can we make >>digital computers? As for a quantum computer, I agree they don't yet exists, so >>I can't show you a picture, but things that exist only in theory have a nasty >>habit of turning into reality at some point. Don't forget that the initial >>theory of modern digital computers was done many years before there were actual >>computers you could take a picture of. >> >>And as far as "the things" existing for only 1/1000000000000 of a second (can I >>assume "the things" you are talking about is quantum entanglement, the >>theoretical basis for quantum computing? If not, what are "the things"?), this >>is totally untrue. Have you read anything recently about quantum entanglement >>or quantum computing? Theory is advancing by leaps and bounds. It remains to >>be seen if engineers will figure out how to do anything useful with it, but I'm >>guessing that eventually, yes they will. >> >>Robin
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.