5 ms·

Quantum computing could be five years away

19 points by mbpp 15y ago

swordswinger12 15y ago
That has to be one of the most tortured opening metaphors I've ever seen in a tech news story. Could they really not come up with an analogy more elegant than, "This building over here is pretty big, but this building is REALLY BIG!!!!"?
- tobiasSoftware 15y ago
  yeah I thought that was really strange too. Perhaps they could have gotten away with the metaphor if they didn't choose the "small" thing as the Vancouver office tower. Why not compare it to a house or something every is familiar with?
cathrithbo 15y ago
>some problems in mathematics will remain beyond the limits of quantum computing I don't think it's surprising that quantum computers, by themselves, will not be able to solve mathematical problems. Problem solving is not a feature of hardware per se, it is done by humans. Perhaps one day by AIs, too, if we can discover how to program them. Two tantalising potential benefits of Quantum Computers: (1) the ability to model all kinds of matter efficiently at the molecular level which will spur the development of nanotech (2) people will ask 'Where are these humongous computations being performed?' and then embrace the 'many worlds interpretation' of quantum mechanics, which will in turn create further scientific and philosophical progress
- icegreentea 15y ago
  Well, they're speaking in rigourous terms. Quantum computing will allow us to attack an enlarged set of problems in polynomial time. For example, integer factorization. However, there are still going to be other problems that quantum computers cannot solve in polynomial time (ie, much better than classical computers). For example, it's generally believed that they will not be able to solve NP-Complete (traveling salesman) problems in polynomial time. For a nice description and diagram, take a look at the wiki page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computing#Relation_to_computational_complexity_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computing#Relation_to_c...
  - swordswinger12 15y ago
    Shameless piggybacking: Also look into the work that complexity theorists have done with quantum complexity classes like BQP.
WalterSear 15y ago
Don't be ridiculous. Everyone knows that it's 'ten' years away, along with AGI and cold fusion.
- MaysonL 15y ago
  Not cold fusion, hot fusion.
- esja 15y ago
  ... and Linux on the desktop
zitterbewegung 15y ago
This is a vast oversimplification of quantum computing. Also, I think its pretty optimistic on the timeline of quantum computing. If you want to read more detailed content see Scott Aaronson's blog http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/ http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/
- hunterp 15y ago
  Agreed.
- Craiggybear 15y ago
  Also agreed.
  - hunterp 15y ago
    Don't understand why I was -4 for typing "agreed"
    - Craiggybear 15y ago
      Neither do I.
heydenberk 15y ago
Articles with titles that could've been true (but weren't) for the last decade are much like articles with titles consisting of questions to which the answer is no.
IgorPartola 15y ago
Couldn't resist: http://xkcd.com/678/ http://xkcd.com/678/
pwpwp 15y ago
Reminds me of: "In a 5 year period we get one superb programming language. Only we can't control when the 5 year period will be." http://www.cs.yale.edu/quotes.html http://www.cs.yale.edu/quotes.html
Craiggybear 15y ago
"Quantum computing could be five years away" They said this fifteen years ago on a radio broadcast. I was sitting there. I heard it. Now, for the last time, where is my jetpack?

19 points by mbpp 15y ago

That has to be one of the most tortured opening metaphors I've ever seen in a tech news story. Could they really not come up with an analogy more elegant than, "This building over here is pretty big, but this building is REALLY BIG!!!!"?

tobiasSoftware 15y ago
yeah I thought that was really strange too. Perhaps they could have gotten away with the metaphor if they didn't choose the "small" thing as the Vancouver office tower. Why not compare it to a house or something every is familiar with?

cathrithbo 15y ago

>some problems in mathematics will remain beyond the limits of quantum computing I don't think it's surprising that quantum computers, by themselves, will not be able to solve mathematical problems. Problem solving is not a feature of hardware per se, it is done by humans. Perhaps one day by AIs, too, if we can discover how to program them. Two tantalising potential benefits of Quantum Computers: (1) the ability to model all kinds of matter efficiently at the molecular level which will spur the development of nanotech (2) people will ask 'Where are these humongous computations being performed?' and then embrace the 'many worlds interpretation' of quantum mechanics, which will in turn create further scientific and philosophical progress

icegreentea 15y ago
Well, they're speaking in rigourous terms. Quantum computing will allow us to attack an enlarged set of problems in polynomial time. For example, integer factorization. However, there are still going to be other problems that quantum computers cannot solve in polynomial time (ie, much better than classical computers). For example, it's generally believed that they will not be able to solve NP-Complete (traveling salesman) problems in polynomial time. For a nice description and diagram, take a look at the wiki page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computing#Relation_to_computational_complexity_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computing#Relation_to_c...
- swordswinger12 15y ago
  Shameless piggybacking: Also look into the work that complexity theorists have done with quantum complexity classes like BQP.

WalterSear 15y ago

Don't be ridiculous. Everyone knows that it's 'ten' years away, along with AGI and cold fusion.

MaysonL 15y ago
Not cold fusion, hot fusion.
esja 15y ago
... and Linux on the desktop

zitterbewegung 15y ago

This is a vast oversimplification of quantum computing. Also, I think its pretty optimistic on the timeline of quantum computing. If you want to read more detailed content see Scott Aaronson's blog http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/ http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/

hunterp 15y ago
Agreed.
Craiggybear 15y ago
Also agreed.
- hunterp 15y ago
  Don't understand why I was -4 for typing "agreed"
  - Craiggybear 15y ago
    Neither do I.

heydenberk 15y ago

Articles with titles that could've been true (but weren't) for the last decade are much like articles with titles consisting of questions to which the answer is no.

IgorPartola 15y ago

Couldn't resist: http://xkcd.com/678/ http://xkcd.com/678/

pwpwp 15y ago

Reminds me of: "In a 5 year period we get one superb programming language. Only we can't control when the 5 year period will be." http://www.cs.yale.edu/quotes.html http://www.cs.yale.edu/quotes.html

Craiggybear 15y ago

"Quantum computing could be five years away" They said this fifteen years ago on a radio broadcast. I was sitting there. I heard it. Now, for the last time, where is my jetpack?