Slashdot Mirror
Quantum Programming with Perl
moyix writes: "There's an article over at perl.com that describes how to use a perl module called Quantum::Entanglement. Using this module, one can simulate programming for a quantum computer. Developers looking to keep their skills current well into the next decade should check this out ;) Debian folks can grab libquantum-entanglement-perl and libquantum-superpositions-perl."
I just happened to notice that Perl is being used for so many innovative research fields.
First of all Perl seems to be an excellent language for Bioinformatics, and Dr. Lincoln Stein is a leading voice in this area. Recently O'Reilly has been giving great coverage in this area.
Nanotechnology seems to be another area where Perl is getting much attention.
I believe the platform and vendor independence, absolute openness, and superb data munging capabilities of it are the main reasons for Perl's adoption in such academic research.
But, although I am an aspiring Perl advocate) and big Larry Wall fan myself, I wonder just how optimized these modules are for such intense low level work....
Broken Hearts are for Assholes. - Frank Zappa
The article does not mention quantum computers, devices which do not exist and may not for quite a while. It simply applies the idea of multiple coexistant states, only one of which being observable at a time, to Perl. You'll note that it runs on a conventional computer; mathematically, a quantum computer would have infinite times the processing power of our current supercomputers, as it could use system resources infinite times at once, assuming each state existed seperately. This does not relate in any way to the hypothesized "Quantum Computers" of the not-so-near future; rather, it is an interesting new operation in Perl which could make anything using random numbers more powerful and easier to code. Imagine the possiblities for games... a very easy way to weight values without using tons of variables... yummy.
First off, I thought just about everything was workable in PERL but this is scary. :) Regardless, to the best of my knowledge there are no working quantum computers (tangible at least.) How can we be sure that code created with this will truely work the same way when it's eventually put onto an actual quantum computer? Even were this based on a tangible prototype I'd feel there'd still be cahnges that'd need to be made. *shrugs* Guess I'm just a jerk about toying with theory. :)
( o ) one could say I'm rather baked
He obviously knows less about quantum computing than those who wrote the perl program.
> You'll note that it runs on a conventional computer
So what? Any quantum calculation can be simulated on classical hardware, just more slowly.
> a quantum computer would have infinite times the processing power of our current supercomputers
Make that "exponentially faster". Infinity is really really big in case you don't know.
> I know the module is supposed to simulate programming a quantum computer, but it is not trying to simulate a quantum computer
That's a gem.
it is not the purpose of quantum computers to store multiple values for a single variable; it is to use physical resources more effectively
Well that does it, you really don't know what you're talking about at all.
For one thing, QCs do exist - in fact, they demonstrated Peter Shor's 1994 factoring algorithm on a recently built 7-qubit box, factoring 15 into 3 and 7.
I wouldn't get too exited about this. Shor's factoring algorithm is a probabilistic algorithm, and for a small number such as 15 you could replace the entire quantum part by rolling some dice and still manage to find factors. So it's possible that the demonstration you refer to messed up somewhere but still managed to factor 15.
Also, NMR quantum computing (which was used for that demonstration) is fundamentally limited to a maximum of around 12 qubits, and I seriously doubt the NSA has got anywhere near 10.
Secondly, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle only states that you can't predict with 100% accuracy which eigenstate a qubit will collapse into upon measurement
This is not the Uncertainty principle. This is the measurement postulate.
The Heisenberg uncertaintly principle says things like " if you know the position of a particle precisely then you can't know anything about it's momentum" etc. Or, to wax technical, the products of the "errors" for position and momentum being greater than half the expectation value of the commutator of the operators represneting position and momentum.
:wq