/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.14792549]

Why are quantum computers not superior to classical machines?
The strong Church Turing Thesis, that "Every realistic model of computation is polynomial time reducible to probabilistic Turing Machines", is disproven by quantum computation - Quantum algorithms are not polynomial time reducible to probabilistic (or deterministic) Turing Machines. By direct consequence, the idea that the universe is programmable on a turing machine is disproven and thus the Church-Turing thesis is disproven.
Even the simplest physical processes are not computable on classical machines yet nature processes them in O(1) time.
The only way it seems to salvage the situation is to give such a broad and meaningless definition of "compute" or "simulate", that you render the very thesis you're trying to defend irrelevant and useless anyway. And it is not the case that the Lambda calculus or Turing Machines can produce the quantum correlations of a quantum algorithm on the same input anyway which means they can't even produce these algorithms.

[Anonymous No.14792807]

bump

[Anonymous No.14792811]

>>14792549
>Why are quantum computers not superior to classical machines?
Because they don't exist.

[Anonymous No.14792836]

>>14792811
Yes they do, and they're only going to get better over the next few years.

[Anonymous No.14792884]

>>14792836
I'm very sorry to tell you this Anon, but they won't

[Anonymous No.14792891]

>>14792836
>Yes they do
No, they really don't. All anyone's done is built contrived zero practical use one-off toy problem solvers where they produce the answer everyone knows in advance by getting rid of any other results as "noise."
You will absolutely be dead before anyone comes close to creating an actual quantum computer, and more likely no one will ever build one because it's a bullshit tar pit for pseud idiots who thinks sticking "quantum" in front of words makes them turn into magic.

[Anonymous No.14792906]

>>14792884
>>14792891
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Address the actual original post.

[Anonymous No.14792923]

>>14792906
>I have no idea what you are talking about.
Yeah, because you have no idea what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.14792925]

>>14792923
You are literally claiming that quantum computers don't exist... because they just don't okay?
I don't give a shit about your dislike of quantum mechanics, which is clearly where your dislike of the idea of quantum computation comes from.

[Anonymous No.14792943]

>>14792925
>things don't exist because they just don't
Yeah.

[Anonymous No.14792948]

>>14792549
What is your question exactly? Did you just copy paste the abstract of some article?

[Anonymous No.14792953]

>>14792943
Nothing you're saying has anything to do with the fact that classical machines can not do the things quantum computers can do.
Claiming that quantum computers don't exist does not mean that classical machines would become capable of performing these operations which is what I'm talking about in the OP.
If nature performs in O(1) time processes that a classical machine would require [math]k^n[/math] steps to complete then classical machines are too weak to emulate physical systems.

[Anonymous No.14792961]

>>14792953
>things quantum computers can do.
Something that doesn't exist can't do anything.

[Anonymous No.14792962]

>>14792948
Basically the idea that quantum computers and classical computers can compute the same class of functions because neither of them can compute non-recursive functions is a pointless definition. The nature of computation should be looked at as a physical thing, not an abstract notion of performing mathematics.

[Anonymous No.14792966]

>>14792961
I don't care anymore about your denial of reality.

[Anonymous No.14792992]

>>14792891
I dont know anon, who wouldve thought that our devices today would even exist. We probably cant even imagine the applications even if we tried our best, Im sure nobody in the 30s would have ever thought about something like IoT.

[Anonymous No.14792997]

>>14792966
No one cares about your imaginary quantum computers or about your schizophrenic non-computaniltiy theories. You're a Mandelbaur-lite.

[Anonymous No.14793002]

>>14792997
You are a fucking idiot. No one cares about your denial of quantum mechanics.

[Anonymous No.14793003]

>>14792549
>is in an undefined nonbinary state
>hangs down from the ceiling
Holy kek, quantum computers have to be the most tranny thing ever invented.

[Anonymous No.14793021]

>>14793002
> denial of quantum mechanics.
Did the voices in your head deny quantum mechanics again?

[Anonymous No.14793026]

>>14793021
I don't understand why you are incapable of understanding this very simple point.
EVEN IF it turns out that quantum computers can not be engineered, that would not in any way serve as evidence that classical computers are capable of performing the algorithms/functions that I am talking about in the OP.
Saying "quantum computers aren't real" does not mean anything with respect to what it is that I'm talking about.

[Anonymous No.14793031]

>>14793026
So you concede that quantum computers are imaginary, you little twink? lol

[Anonymous No.14793034]

>>14792549
>Why are quantum computers not superior to classical machines?
Because they are incredibly expensive and inefficient

[Anonymous No.14793041]

>>14793031
>So you concede that quantum computers are imaginary
No, I don't. I am saying that with respect to the nature of computation, the existence of natural phenomena that can not be algorithmically defined and simulated on classical machines disproves the strong church turing thesis, that "every realistic model of computation is polynomial time reducible to probabilistic Turing Machines"
Nature is performing realistic models of computation that are not polynomial time reducible to probabilistic turing machines.

[Anonymous No.14793057]

>>14793041
>natural phenomena that can not be algorithmically defined and simulated on classical machines
Prove that such a thing exists. Protip: you literally can't.

[Anonymous No.14793065]

>>14793057
Basically all quantum search algorithms or the quantum fourier transform etc.
Classical machines can't do it but quantum computers (and nature) do them all the time

[Anonymous No.14793074]

>>14793065
Note when I say "can't do it" I mean it exactly in the sense of the strong church turing thesis.
Classical machines can not perform these algorithms in polynomial time.

[Anonymous No.14793091]

>>14793065
>quantum search algorithms or the quantum fourier transform
Quantum computers don't exist so there are no such processes in nature. Try again.

[Anonymous No.14793098]

>>14793091
Quantum mechanics itself is the basis for these algorithms, quantum computers are just a way for us to possibly exploit these natural processes to help solve problems that we want to solve.
You declaring that these processes don't exist is actually you declaring that quantum mechanics isn't real.

[Anonymous No.14793120]

>>14793098
>Quantum mechanics itself is the basis for these algorithms
Algorithms are imaginary. Show me an actual process in nature that corresponds to your sci-fi.

[Anonymous No.14793133]

>>14792992
>I dont know anon, who wouldve thought that our devices today would even exist. We probably cant even imagine the applications even if we tried our best, Im sure nobody in the 30s would have ever thought about something like IoT.
That's completely correct and supports my argument instead of going against it.
If you look at all the past attempts at predicting the nature of future technology, almost every single one of them is ridiculous and has nothing to do with the actual technology that ended up getting developed.

[Anonymous No.14793135]

>>14793120
All molecular interaction, atomic/chemical bonds, every time particles are entangled, etc. These are described with quantum mechanics.

[Anonymous No.14793145]

>>14792549
>Why are quantum computers not superior to classical machines?
Because quantum mechanics is bullshit, and every technology supposedly based on it is a scam.

[Anonymous No.14793147]

>>14793133
how come they have all those children's toys and amusements on ur picrel, but thy don't have any children?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphilic_infantilism

[Anonymous No.14793151]

>>14793003
lmao

[Anonymous No.14793154]

>>14793065
>Basically all quantum search algorithms or the quantum fourier transform etc.
>Classical machines can't do it but quantum computers (and nature) do them all the time
Definitely not. If we had examples of ANY natural processes that could do "quantum computing" algorithms then a quantum computer would just entail copying that natural process. Instead nobody even knows if theoretical quantum computer algorithms can ever be pulled off in practice and the attempts to make them work are all completely artificial and don't reproduce "natural computation" examples that you seem to believe exist.

[Anonymous No.14793161]

>>14793135
>All molecular interaction, atomic/chemical bonds
Do quantum search and quantum fourier transofmr?

[Anonymous No.14793770]

[Anonymous No.14793786]

>>14793770
You can have your 14 photons and I'll stick to my actual working computer that isn't powered by the broken dreams of quantum computing grad students.

[Anonymous No.14793806]

>>14792549
>Why are quantum computers not superior to classical machines?

They literally don't exist.

[Anonymous No.14794813]

>>14793154
>If we had examples of ANY natural processes that could do "quantum computing" algorithms
Electron-nuclear and inter electron interactions are all described with quantum mechanics and are thus performing the "quantum algorithm" as they evolve. The algorithm is really just the name of the evolution of the system that we're describing with quantum mechanics. Copying the natural process is copying the algorithm, but that corresponds to performing a chemical experiment or something. If you wanted to copy the process using computation then a classical machine (like sitting down to do the math or programming it on a computer) doesn't work because these processes are described with quantum mechanics. That's why we need a quantum computer to solve these problems; Quantum computers are performing the quantum algorithm like the actual system is.

[Anonymous No.14794936]

>>14792549
Isn't Schrodinger equation computable by a turing machine? Why quantum computers aren't? Also quantum algorithms were developed somehow, how if they aren't computable?

[Anonymous No.14794954]

>>14794936
Because the entire field is a gigantic grift, and D-Wave is the biggest scam since Theranos.

[Anonymous No.14795074]

>>14793041
>hand waving intensifies
that's a helicopter, not a quantum computer

[frenanon No.14795123]

>>14793147
>how come they have all those children's toys and amusements on ur picrel, but thy don't have any children?
The anon's pic you're responding to is where the money for ""Quantum Research"" ends up going.
They've stolen Hundreds-of-$Trillions over the past century or two, to create a parallel society where they steal the resources/labor of "normal Society".
They literally don't care about any consequences to normal peoples' lives. If anything, they're bored from "winning too much", and want things to turn into one of their sci-fi zombie mooooovies.

[Anonymous No.14795157]

>>14792891
This.
It's like people saying they're programming AI, in python. It's all just marketing.

[frenanon No.14795173]

>>14793770
Wow, that looks like one of my Projects that I've emailed to various Academic/Government Departments trying to get Research Grants and Patents.

That's funny how pretty much all of the projects I've emailed to various Agencies over the years have magically been "discovered/invented" shortly after I contact them.

I'm sure they wouldn't do anything "questionably ethical" like that just for fame and money. I'm sure they wouldn't harass myself or others who also happen to have their submitted ideas stolen by them.

[Anonymous No.14795202]

>>14795173
I'm sure you'd never be electronically harassed either that's totally never happened to me by low level cia suck ups out contracting to convicted criminals.

[Anonymous No.14795405]

>>14792549
Turing machine faggots want to limit all computation to tape reading and writing. Why do these religious fanatics get any respect at all?

[Anonymous No.14795412]

>>14795173
you really are a staggeringly stupid faggot

[Anonymous No.14795712]

>>14795405
That's what I'm saying! We are in agreement.
Nature is not calculable on tape reading and writing, the dynamics physical processes are more powerful than that.

[Anonymous No.14795903]

>>14795712
Agreed. The tape doesn't exist in of itself, it has to be processed by a computer, which is a boolean circuit, yet they seem to think the tape is the computer. Think of logic gates, they operate on coincidence and timing. The only way a tape can respond to coincidences and signals at specific times is by running at a phenomenal speed that effectively freezes in time the reality being sampled from the point of view of the tape. It's a very inefficient way of doing things.

[Anonymous No.14797848]

>>14793003
oh fuck kek

[Anonymous No.14798754]

bump