Re: Quantum computer using using artificial atoms.

jstevh_at_msn.com
Date: 02/26/05 

Date: 26 Feb 2005 11:54:16 -0800

Décio Luiz Gazzoni Filho wrote:
> Here, James, I'll do you a favor and forward this to the sci.physics
> newsgroup. I'm sure they'll have a word or two to say about your
> characterization of quantum mechanics.
>
> Décio
>

Hey, go ahead. The reality is that quantum computers must implement
ideas that can be mathematicized, and when mathematicized, they can be
done on a gp computer.

So, quantum computers can already be implemented--if the math is worked
out--on current systems which will behave like actual quantum
computers, doing everything they can do.

Now I think a lot of you figure that "quantum" is some kind of magical
thing, so the obvious escapes you, even when smart ideas like surrogate
factoring, where actual implementations--still rough, but showing the
potential--behave a lot like quantum computers are supposed to behave,
come along.

The trouble though is that while the mainstream may reject inconvenient
reality, like gp devices--your good 'ol computer--being programmed with
algorithms that make them behave like quantum computers, the fringe
will happily develop them anyway.

So, you see, quantum computers are already here, and algorithms like
those used in surrogate factoring show that they are already here, even
if imperfectly, but, you see, those algorithms can already factor more
than 15.

Here's an example from a recent run of my still very inefficient and
not perfect algorithm, as it doesn't always factor, but STILL it uses
the full set of rationals to find solutions:

M = 531726972602802439

T = 51586797117453633

And the factorizaton of T^6 is

 ( 3^12 )( 7^12 )( 113^6 )( 131^6 )( 57493^6 )( 137447^6 )

Iterations: 213309

I should explain "Iterations" as that's the number of combinations of
*integer* factors f_1 and f_2 such that f_1 f_2 = T^6.

Here the program ran through 213,309 of those pairs of factors before
finding a solution, and at times I've said multiply that number, as I
fiddle with the factors, forcing in factors of 2, so I'm making more
combinations of fractional factors out of the original integer ones.

The program tells me whether or not an integer pair or a fractional one
worked.

Here it was an integer pair.

More output:

Success!
Factors:
 ( 470371337 )( 1130440847 )
Product: 531726972602802439
Number of digits: 18
bitLength=59

Now the algorithm that the program uses, is simple, but the theory says
that it works based on checking through the entire set of rationals for
solutions.

I can't get it to always work, but it works enough to show that there's
potential.

My issue with math society is that they love pet ideas of
mathematicians who are part of the in-crowd, but routinely reject ideas
that come from people outside of that crowd, so I suspect that no
matter what I say here, there's no way that a prize pet idea like
factoring with quantum computing will be acknowledged to be related to
a frowned upon outsider idea like surrogate factoring--without regard
to the mathematical reality.

Mathematicians are simply a very social group, whether the world
accepts it or not.

They play social games not unlike children on a playground picking what
kids they want to play with or not.

Read past posts in reply to me carefully, and you'll see the heavy
social element, where posters post as if I'm the unwanted kid trying to
horn in on their games!

Repeately they make the point that I am not wanted, while I take the
adult perspective and try to force them to focus on the ideas, not
personalities or whether or not I'm liked.

They don't like me, so they ignore my ideas, no matter how dramatic
those ideas may be, or how correct.

It's bizarre, I know, but read past posts and you'll see it jump out at
you.

Mathematicians behave like kids on a playground with pet ideas, and an
ability to ignore important ideas if they don't like the person giving
them.

James Harris

Relevant Pages