Okay..got it guys. This topic and conversation makes my head spin....tooooo deep and extremely complicated for my brain to process. I'm still at school but someday I hope to be just as smart.
Special Announcement! (MUST READ)
Sort:
Aug 3, 2017
0
#23
I read a little on D-Wave computing and what little I took away (software engineering and quantum mechanics are not my field) was that it just calculates best possible solutions based on probabilities and not absolute answers like a "regular" computer....so the solution was to have a "regular" computer work together with or check the quantum one. Also I was wondering why a "heavy" software engineer can only muster at best a 1515 rapid rating in chess (bullet and blitz are lower and he played a lot).
In 2007 Umesh Vazirani, a professor at University of California (UC) Berkeley and one of the founders of quantum complexity theory upon which D-Wave is based, made the following criticism:[53] "Their claimed speedup over classical algorithms appears to be based on a misunderstanding of a paper my colleagues van Dam, Moscaand I wrote on "The power of adiabatic quantum computing." That speed up unfortunately does not hold in the setting at hand, and therefore D-Wave's "quantum computer" even if it turns out to be a true quantum computer, and even if it can be scaled to thousands of qubits, would likely not be more powerful than a cell phone."
Aug 4, 2017
0
#25
Aren't current quantum computers so big they take up the space of an aircraft hangar? (slight exaggeration)
Aug 4, 2017
0
#26
Gruber86 wrote:
Aren't current quantum computers so big they take up the space of an aircraft hangar? (slight exaggeration)
Almost:
SmotheredMate33 wrote:
Not since deep blue vs. Watson has chess been so fundamentally changed in one day.
What day was that?
Aug 4, 2017
0
#28
Sqod wrote:
The OP's claims have a realistic tone.
People like you are the reason conspiracy theories survive
Make any claim on the internet, no matter how far fetched, and some uncritical fool is always going to swallow it whole.
Aug 4, 2017
0
#29
Pyotrvich wrote:
Sqod wrote:
The OP's claims have a realistic tone.
People like you are the reason conspiracy theories survive
Make any claim on the internet, no matter how far fetched, and some uncritical fool is always going to swallow it whole.
Blocked.
But thanks for providing three examples of this logical fallacy in a single post! This logical fallacy is called "affirming the consequent" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent).
Your examples:
(1)
A1 = a person who relies solely on a realistic tone
A2 = Sqod, who mentioned a realistic tone
B = hypothesis accepted by A[x] due to perceived realistic tone
Since A1 => B, then A2 => B. False.
(2)
A1 = a person who relies solely on tone
A2 = Sqod, who mentioned a realistic tone
B = conspiracy theory accepted by A[x] due to perceived realistic tone
Since A1 => B, then A2 => B. False.
(3)
A1 = tone is one factor to consider in a claim
A2 = price is one factor to consider in a claim
A3 = likely theoretical conflict is one factor to consider in a claim
B = claim accepted
B => A1 was the deciding factor. False.
Conclusion--People with faulty logic like yours are *one* reason conspiracy theories aren't taken more seriously.
Aug 4, 2017
0
#30
Gruber86 wrote:
Aren't current quantum computers so big they take up the space of an aircraft hangar? (slight exaggeration)
For universal quantum computers, yes. For (D-Wave's) adiabatic quantum computers, no.
As Pikelemi showed above, D-Wave's adiabatic quantum computers are about the size of a large refrigerator. For IBM's universal quantum computers, though, the cooling units alone take up about the size of a room, though those are experimental computers that aren't intended to be sold:
()
IBM Advances Quantum Computing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roKm2s46LPc
()
15 = 3 x 5: Erik Lucero's Quantum Computing Breakthrough
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yl3o236gdp8
()
IBM Q universal quantum computer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2B680d-qvhI&t=97s
We're still 15-20 years away from quantum computers defeating conventional computers and GMs in chess. Of more immediate concern is when they will be able to factor large semiprime integers and solve discrete logarithms, the basis of modern security and encryption. When that moment draws nigh, I won't have any more money in the bank than I can afford to lose overnight.
Because conspiracies exist, some conspiracy theories are accurate.
SmotheredMate33 escribió:
Hello all,
Today I can finally announce that I have finished work on the best known pairing of software and hardware the chess world has ever laid eyes on. For the past 6 months, my wonderful team and I have modified a 2000 qubit D-Wave 2000Q quantum computer to work seamlessly with our proprietary software. You should all mark down this day, as one day you will be telling your grandchildren you were one of the first to hear of this new era of chess we have embarked on today.
Just reading this is enough to know that you are full of shit. I didn't even need to read the rest.
I've seen enough snake oil to know what it smells like, and my time practicing law helped me cultivate an exquisite sense of when I'm being lied to, even over text.
Yes, you and bb_gum234 seem to be much better at detecting hype than I. I suppose I'm overreacting because of nasty reactions on this site over the years about two of my own claims, both of which are admittedly quite extreme but I still believe in them 100%. People here objected based on faulty logic and the pseudo-wisdom that "Most people who claim X are frauds, therefore *everyone* who claims X is a fraud." Such faulty logic is very repugnant to me, so I am particularly sensitive to it.