Re: triple algorithms
- From: Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]>
- Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 13:24:10 +0000
In message <nvIxj.20501$421.12265@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Antony Clements <antony.clements@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes
Nobody knows if it's physically possible to prepare the quantum states
that the algorithm needs. They are exponentially long vectors and
there may be some physical limits that stop quantum computing from
actually working. We don't have an experimental demonstration one way
or the other. We're in a situation sort of like Newtonian physics in
the 18th century, where it explains a lot, but it also predicts that
we can travel faster than light.
FTL travel is nor just a theoretical possability, it also is a practical
possability once someone figures out how to envelope an object in a static
reference frame. which granted is an obscure mathematical construct, but
it's still there.
And you might as well talk about enveloping yourself in the square root of minus one, for all the sense it makes. Obscure mathematical constructs and material objects inhabit different domains.
--
Richard Herring
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: triple algorithms
- From: Antony Clements
- Re: triple algorithms
- References:
- triple algorithms
- From: Antony Clements
- Re: triple algorithms
- From: Simon Johnson
- Re: triple algorithms
- From: Paul Rubin
- Re: triple algorithms
- From: Simon Johnson
- Re: triple algorithms
- From: Ertugrul Söylemez
- Re: triple algorithms
- From: Paul Rubin
- Re: triple algorithms
- From: Ertugrul Söylemez
- Re: triple algorithms
- From: Paul Rubin
- Re: triple algorithms
- From: Antony Clements
- triple algorithms
- Prev by Date: Re: Someone said 256 bits is not enough
- Next by Date: Re: Someone said 256 bits is not enough
- Previous by thread: Re: triple algorithms
- Next by thread: Re: triple algorithms
- Index(es):