Perhaps wouldn't, not couldn't. The "so what" of this article is that they're reproducing a past result, by doing physics experiments with an entangled system -- it's a kind of verification; about all the "proof" you can ever get about an analog computer, by my understanding.
It also shows a use beyond just SAT and factoring which looks rather novel to me, but apparently Feynman suggested it.
It's fairly similar to an FPGA, actually. An FPGA can't simulate an FPGA of the same size as itself, but it can simulate a smaller FPGA. They aren't simulating their hardware, they're simulating something significantly smaller.
Yeah, it's underhanded marketing to get people excited about their extremely lame quantum computing efforts. Amusingly transparent, for how quickly people drag D-Wave here.
Most quantum computing efforts are purely electrical in their implementations, so the entangled objects are "massless" (cough cough electrons have mass). Entanglement of photons has been long-since demonstrated. This "massive" entanglement involves moving mass around. I'm not impressed by the technicality but curious about its applications
That's all true, of course, but the fragility mentioned in the article is a hard barrier to scaling. Wake me up when an independent research group demonstrates a scaling advantage on any problem class
D-Wave recently released its DW2000Q qubits. Where 2000 qubits are guaranteed to be calibrated, the actual device contains 2048 qubits. D-Wave operates its refrigerators around half the temperature, and 48 qubits is their acceptable error margin. So, good job, Intel, your hot quantum computer is dinky and negligibly small
As somebody who has used a DWave computer... you're asking the wrong question. They cannot run Firefox at any speed. They're analog computers purpose-built to solve extremely specialized optimization problems. But they don't necessarily "solve" problems -- they're likely to find good near-solutions. If you write an LLVM extension for which bitwise operations are computed as a solutions to an Ising spin glass problem, then it'd be waaay faster to run your Firefox port on DWave hardware backend than it would use a simulated annealing backend.
If you're going to break the fucking library by declaring it insecure trash for life, break the library. Make it crash hard when it's used. The problem software will percolate up to the users' attention.
You're just knocking on doors asking companies to expose themselves to lawsuits for the dubious reward of paying you to sit on your ass and do nothing while they dump buckets of money into turning your patent into a product. Not attractive.
If you want a big company to pay for your idea, start a business. Succeed with your idea. Then get your company bought out. You'll get money for effort. Y'know, money you deserve, for putting in the effort.
Listen to what prostitutes have to say on the topic before you get all righteous about protecting them. Governments have been doing that since time immemorial, and the efforts to "protect" prostitutes tend to harm them. Arresting them is just awful. Arresting their johns is just as bad, because it forces it underground and establishes a black market complete with human trafficking, prevents prostitutes from conducting interviews in a safe way, from establishing brothels and hiring security guards, etc. We've been trying this "ban it 'til it dies" approach. It's never worked, there's no reason to think that it will tomorrow.
Your statement about "most prostitutes" can only be interpreted as factual if it is backed by good science with a significant and representative sample of prostitutes. Since prostitution is illegal, there's major problems in finding people to participate in a poll, so there is heavy sample bias in all of the social science done regarding prostitutes.
For example, such polls are often done when prostitutes are in the middle of an interaction with either the legal system or the health system. If you poll the prostitutes you find in a rape shelter, for example, you'll get very different statistics than you would in a legal brothel in Nevada.
Stop criminalizing sex. Just like pot, it's only sketchy 'cause it's illegal. Sure, there's still potential for abuse and harm... but in our present system, the laws mandate harm done to prostitutes and johns who are, by and large, just consenting adults. Unlike pot, shagging for pay doesn't harm one's ability to drive for the next few hours.
I hated math in high school. I took a couple of coding classes when I got to college, and soon thereafter got a few jobs programming. I didn't really enjoy what I was doing, so I went back to school.
Programming taught me how to think rigorously. With a mind geared towards precise thinking, I found math to be a breeze. Now... I'm a mathematician who spends all her time programming -- I can tackle problems that old pencil & paper mathematicians balk at.
You don't have to be good at programming to do math. You'll just suck.
Also, math is not just arithmetic and calculus, you incompetent fools.
Mathematicians don't know which rule has precedence for 0/0,
Ouch. +5, Informative indeed. <sigh>
Mathematicians can argue for any value at all, not just zero or one. This means that neither of your "rules" could take precedence.
Annnnd, on to your rules. Any number multiplied by zero is zero. Any nonzero number divided by itself is one. Of course, mathematicians are wont to generalize "number" to "field element". Go crack out on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(mathematics)
Sure, better technology exists than topological sort ! Thanks for pointing out a better approach. OP's point, and mine, is that a few minutes of thought can be used to replace a horrible, unmaintainable cludge a graceful, robust approach. In fine Unix tradition, epoch wants to keep ritual animal sacrifice as a neccessary part of system administration. Good for the goat industry, bad for your coldroom floor.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps wouldn't, not couldn't. The "so what" of this article is that they're reproducing a past result, by doing physics experiments with an entangled system -- it's a kind of verification; about all the "proof" you can ever get about an analog computer, by my understanding. It also shows a use beyond just SAT and factoring which looks rather novel to me, but apparently Feynman suggested it.
It's fairly similar to an FPGA, actually. An FPGA can't simulate an FPGA of the same size as itself, but it can simulate a smaller FPGA. They aren't simulating their hardware, they're simulating something significantly smaller.
Yeah, it's underhanded marketing to get people excited about their extremely lame quantum computing efforts. Amusingly transparent, for how quickly people drag D-Wave here.
Most quantum computing efforts are purely electrical in their implementations, so the entangled objects are "massless" (cough cough electrons have mass). Entanglement of photons has been long-since demonstrated. This "massive" entanglement involves moving mass around. I'm not impressed by the technicality but curious about its applications
That's all true, of course, but the fragility mentioned in the article is a hard barrier to scaling. Wake me up when an independent research group demonstrates a scaling advantage on any problem class
D-Wave recently released its DW2000Q qubits. Where 2000 qubits are guaranteed to be calibrated, the actual device contains 2048 qubits. D-Wave operates its refrigerators around half the temperature, and 48 qubits is their acceptable error margin. So, good job, Intel, your hot quantum computer is dinky and negligibly small
Nah, finding a purpose for a quirk can be an invention too
As somebody who has used a DWave computer... you're asking the wrong question. They cannot run Firefox at any speed. They're analog computers purpose-built to solve extremely specialized optimization problems. But they don't necessarily "solve" problems -- they're likely to find good near-solutions. If you write an LLVM extension for which bitwise operations are computed as a solutions to an Ising spin glass problem, then it'd be waaay faster to run your Firefox port on DWave hardware backend than it would use a simulated annealing backend.
And that would simply be awful.
If you're going to break the fucking library by declaring it insecure trash for life, break the library. Make it crash hard when it's used. The problem software will percolate up to the users' attention.
This!
You're just knocking on doors asking companies to expose themselves to lawsuits for the dubious reward of paying you to sit on your ass and do nothing while they dump buckets of money into turning your patent into a product. Not attractive.
If you want a big company to pay for your idea, start a business. Succeed with your idea. Then get your company bought out. You'll get money for effort. Y'know, money you deserve, for putting in the effort.
Listen to what prostitutes have to say on the topic before you get all righteous about protecting them. Governments have been doing that since time immemorial, and the efforts to "protect" prostitutes tend to harm them. Arresting them is just awful. Arresting their johns is just as bad, because it forces it underground and establishes a black market complete with human trafficking, prevents prostitutes from conducting interviews in a safe way, from establishing brothels and hiring security guards, etc. We've been trying this "ban it 'til it dies" approach. It's never worked, there's no reason to think that it will tomorrow.
Your statement about "most prostitutes" can only be interpreted as factual if it is backed by good science with a significant and representative sample of prostitutes. Since prostitution is illegal, there's major problems in finding people to participate in a poll, so there is heavy sample bias in all of the social science done regarding prostitutes.
For example, such polls are often done when prostitutes are in the middle of an interaction with either the legal system or the health system. If you poll the prostitutes you find in a rape shelter, for example, you'll get very different statistics than you would in a legal brothel in Nevada.
Stop criminalizing sex. Just like pot, it's only sketchy 'cause it's illegal. Sure, there's still potential for abuse and harm... but in our present system, the laws mandate harm done to prostitutes and johns who are, by and large, just consenting adults. Unlike pot, shagging for pay doesn't harm one's ability to drive for the next few hours.
You don't know your history if you're praising the suffragettes.
Yeah... damn those women! They didn't clean up after their men! Shaaaaaame!
Do I need to explain sarcasm to you?
Yeah right... as if this is a result of gun laws. Clearly those toddlers are mentally unsound. They need better mental health care!
AC gotta build up that Karma, yo.
I hated math in high school. I took a couple of coding classes when I got to college, and soon thereafter got a few jobs programming. I didn't really enjoy what I was doing, so I went back to school.
Programming taught me how to think rigorously. With a mind geared towards precise thinking, I found math to be a breeze. Now... I'm a mathematician who spends all her time programming -- I can tackle problems that old pencil & paper mathematicians balk at.
You don't have to be good at programming to do math. You'll just suck.
Also, math is not just arithmetic and calculus, you incompetent fools.
I, for one, will be generating trillions of copies of the Virgin Killer cover art, to cover as much of the hash space as possible.
Easy. You don't need to worry about upstream updates 'cause the system is unhackable.
Duh. Idiot.
I puncture my company's firewall all the time, without any risk to my work computer, without any logging on my work computer, etc.
Who cares? If their product existed, they'd have pictures and not 3d renderings. Idioth.
My vibrator is a sexual object. Treating it as a sexual object is not demeaning. It's a damned vibrator. Idiot.
Do you mean that images of naked porn stars are "safe for work" because the models are "at work"? Sounds legit.
Mathematicians don't know which rule has precedence for 0/0,
Ouch. +5, Informative indeed. <sigh>
Mathematicians can argue for any value at all, not just zero or one. This means that neither of your "rules" could take precedence.
Annnnd, on to your rules. Any number multiplied by zero is zero. Any nonzero number divided by itself is one. Of course, mathematicians are wont to generalize "number" to "field element". Go crack out on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(mathematics)
Sure, better technology exists than topological sort ! Thanks for pointing out a better approach. OP's point, and mine, is that a few minutes of thought can be used to replace a horrible, unmaintainable cludge a graceful, robust approach. In fine Unix tradition, epoch wants to keep ritual animal sacrifice as a neccessary part of system administration. Good for the goat industry, bad for your coldroom floor.