Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 14:44:21 10/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 25, 2002 at 17:32:19, Lieven Clarisse wrote: Yes i know, therefore the year 2300 looks to me like a good date. By then we all are dead anyway. I remember how i recently heard Jaap v/d Herik talking at the radio about computers and law: "computers will be able to apply the rules of law by the year 2100". Yes Jaap is right! But we can never verify his statements of course :) >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.