Re: Quantum computer using using artificial atoms.
From: yama (yama_at_yomama.com)
Date: 02/27/05
- Next message: Brian Boutel: "Re: Thou shalt have no other gods before the ANSI C standard"
- Previous message: Beth: "Re: Quantum computer using using artificial atoms."
- In reply to: Beth: "Re: Quantum computer using using artificial atoms."
- Next in thread: Trevor L. Jackson, III: "Re: Quantum computer using using artificial atoms."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 15:56:04 -0800
On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 19:51:21 GMT, Beth <sneezie@unlisted.net> wrote:
>In article <1109434007.865269.17710@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
><jstevh@msn.com> wrote:
>
>> Sorry to horn in a bit, but I think there's an important point to be
>> made that quantum ideas have to do with *mechanical* factoring.
>
>I've been trying to ignore your posts, but ...
>
>> Yeah, I know, it's quantum, and all kind of interesting physics
>> associated with what is to many a mystical word, but I have a B.Sc. in
>> physics, and I know that you're just talking about specialized
>> mechanical devices when you talk about quantum computing.
>
>About that B.Sc., are you sure?
>
>> It has occurred to me that given Shor's algorithm there has to be a
>> fully mathematicized version of it.
>
>There is. It's called "Shor's algorithm", oddly enough.
>
>> What a quantum computer can do, a gp computer with the appropriate
>> algorithms can do.
>
>The mathematics of quantum computing is different from the mathematics
>of classical computing. The set of algorithms that run in polynomial
>time on a quantum computer is different from the set of algorithms that
>run in polynomial time on a classical computer, as far as anyone has
>been able to determine. Maybe you should get a book on complexity
>theory to go along with that wonderful B.Sc. in physics.
>
>Keep in mind that Shor's algorithm is, like quantum mechanics,
>probabilistic. (But probabilistic algorithms aren't the same as
>quantum algorithms, just to be pedantic (different notions of
>probability).)
That is an interesting reply.
It is one thing to "lecture" others, who may fall for the
mis-information, with falsehoods, in order to satisfy a sad thirst for
undeserved recognition in another failed, ostentatious attempt.
But Harris has apparently made the (unfortunate) jump to actually
believing his own BS.
Thank you for the clarity.
- Next message: Brian Boutel: "Re: Thou shalt have no other gods before the ANSI C standard"
- Previous message: Beth: "Re: Quantum computer using using artificial atoms."
- In reply to: Beth: "Re: Quantum computer using using artificial atoms."
- Next in thread: Trevor L. Jackson, III: "Re: Quantum computer using using artificial atoms."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|