Frank Röber wrote: For the following, let's ignore the noise of real existing systems. Im talking of an ideally QPU.
Frank Röber wrote:For the following, let's ignore the noise of real existing systems. Im talking of an ideally QPU.
If I know there is only one result, the candidate should be clear after let#s say 10 cycles. But this is just a feeling, I cannot evaluate the error rate.
If there're two expected results (e.g. root-finding like Newton), how many cycles would I need to become confident about the result? It gets worse if there are more roots I didn't expect...
Frank Röber wrote:As a QPU programmer, will I have to code that cycles explicitly or is this hidden by the device?
Himai Minh wrote:Hi, Eric Johnson,
Would you be interested to be our next speaker of Washington DC quantum computing meetup group to talk about your new book?
If you are in DC, our group will meet up at Cambridge Quantum Computing office.
If you are not in DC, we can have online event via Brighttalk or Zoom or etc.
Liutauras Vilda wrote:Thank you for answering questions. It has been a very active week for this book.
Campbell Ritchie wrote:So that Bristol encryption card would send all possible passwords and some way to work out which the correct password is? Also, if anybody snooped the password in transit, would it become obvious immediately at the other end and allow us to repeat the encryption process?
Claude Moore wrote:
Well, one could argue that from a practical point of view, being able to train a model in a few microseconds would be the same as loading it from a persistent storage, wouldn't it be?
Claude Moore wrote:Thanks a lot for your detailed answer. I am very excited about what you said about the superscalar speed up you can achieve on algorithms using QC:l can't stop thinking about what we could achieve in the field of Neural networks, and in AI in general...
Michael Krimgen wrote:However, do you see any applications of the concepts of QC algorithms in other areas like concurrent programming?
Jay Ko wrote:I don't know anything about quantum computing, but as I read some of posts, it is not 0 and 1.(If it is wrong, please point out)
Then, do I need new computer in order to quantum computing?
If no, should I have to new OS?
Mainak Biswas wrote:Authors - how many qubits would be required to do create say a calculator?
Roger Yates wrote:‘what language is/can be used to develop these native libraries for QPUs? Is this more assembly-like or are there already compilers for higher level abstractions?’
Claude Moore wrote:In the authors' opinion, do they think that we need to redefine concepts we used to use in traditional informatics, for example the Turing Machine model, Big O complexity notation and so on, or the same will still be valid to study algorithms from a theorical point of view?
Jean-François Morin wrote:Are the code and the algorithms in those books some sort of emulation of how QC might be achieved on an actual quantum computer?
Jean-François Morin wrote:If so, I tend intuitively to think the speed might not be the same... Am I right?
Frank Röber wrote:If emulation would be fast enough, we wouldn't need QC at all...
Jean-François Morin wrote:In other words, I'm trying to make sense of QC and QC algorithms being implemented and run on a non-quantum computer...
Frank Röber wrote:I expect, that it's especially pretty difficult (tricky?) to simulate the superposition state - I wonder how they do that...
David Sachdev wrote:Does your book go into what and why there are algorithms exclusive to Quantum computing? Does it have information on if it is the speed of quantum computing, the nature of it, or other reasons that the algorithms are targeted at the platform. Also, it seems more and more that algorithms aren't taught, but people are introduced to libraries where the low level algorithms are presented.
David Sachdev wrote:What are the languages and platforms that are leading the way when it comes to Quantum computing?