Re: Quantum computer using using artificial atoms.

jstevh_at_msn.com
Date: 02/28/05 

Date: 28 Feb 2005 04:11:46 -0800

Seth wrote:
> In article <1109528598.941998.92320@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> <jstevh@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > Beth wrote:
>
> > > Please, please, please read a book or take a course in
computational
> > > complexity theory. Quantum computable and (deterministic-)
Turing
> > > computable are not the same thing and can not be made to be the
same
> > > thing - not with any known theory of computation.
>
> > Why? Because you say so?
>
> > I presume from your statement that I should read a book on
> > computational complexity theory that you have actually read one, so
my
> > next queston should be easy for you.
>
> > Can you cite any known text that supports your claim?
>
> I gave you one reference which has a brief discussion of complexity
> theory already - Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. You
can
> try the article "A Survey of Quantum Complexity Theory" by Umesh V.
> Vazirani found in the book "Quantum Computation: A Grand Mathematical
> Challenge for the Twenty-First Century and the Millenium", Samuel J.
> Lomonaco, Jr., Editor, American Mathematical Society, ISBN
> 0-8218-2084-2. This article describes a quantum Turing maching,
which
> is different from a Turing machine - as you can see from the
> mathematical definitions provided.
>

<deleted>

Sounds interesting and I read the rest of your post but wanted to focus
on the end where I think you are getting into the area where I want to
make an important point.

>
> As I've said before, the issue is efficiency. You can simulate a
> quantum computer on a conventional computer, but you can't
necessarily
> get a quantum polynomial time algorithm to run in polynomial time on
a
> conventional computer. Of course, you could prove my wrong by
proving
> P=NP.

Factoring has never been proven to be a hard problem, but for anecdotal
reasons is believed to be a hard problem, while my surrogate factoring
algorithms are in P.

Now they don't work all the time, which is, of course, the major point
that people seize upon, but they do often work.

Like I've said, I can demonstrate a solution with bigger numbers than
15, which is the best that mechanical implementations have managed to
do with quantum.

So, I have this method, which puts factoring in P, which already
factors well enough to show that there could be something to the
concept, and I have a different view of Turing machines and their
generality than others who are trying to push the idea that quantum
Turing is different from Turing.

Time will tell, as if surrogate factoring develops and better and
better algorithms, like perfect ones, result, then you will have a
solution to the factoring problem in P, where it's easy to show that
the mathematical logic relies on the kind of simultaneous calculations
that are a big deal in quantum computing.

That is, I'm saying that the behavior of quantum computers is not some
future event, but something that is nearly upon us now.

James Harris