2 hours ago, iNow said:

Yes, because if we haven’t done it by today then it’s clearly impossible. There’s simply no other possible explanation for why the work isn’t yet finished right now this second as I type this. None. Zero. 🙈

What has gotten into you? I said "I don't think that's the way to increase quantum computing performance" and not "I don't think it's possible to increase quantum computing performance"

Edited January 8, 20241 yr by AIkonoklazt

It’s absurd this requires clarification since I quoted the specific part to which I was specifically replying, but you ALSO said:

3 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

if that were the case it would already been done.

 

Just now, iNow said:

It’s absurd this requires clarification since I quoted the specific part to which I was specifically replying, but you ALSO said:

 

Didn't say it's impossible to string units up in series- I just said if that's the way to raise performance than it would already been done.

Again, what's gotten into you?

Just now, AIkonoklazt said:

if that's the way to raise performance than it would already been done.

Are you seriously unable to think of even one single alternative reason this hasn’t been demonstrated yet as of right now today? 

1 minute ago, iNow said:

Are you seriously unable to think of even one single alternative reason this hasn’t been demonstrated yet as of right now today? 

Ask those guys at IBM "hey, have you guys ever thought of hooking up multiple units?"

Are YOU serious? If you are, go and remind them of your revolutionary technique....... Hooking multiple units up in series.

Edit: uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh yeah let me give INow a small hint... How are multi-unit setup alleviate energy limitations instead of making it WORSE by introducing overheads? Good grief.......

4 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

Ask those guys at IBM "hey, have you guys ever thought of hooking up multiple units?"

Jesus you’re foolish sometimes for what appears to be an otherwise intelligent individual. They’re already working on it and we should see more in about a year… but the underlying principles have been laid out for several years already. 
 

https://newsroom.ibm.com/2022-11-09-IBM-Unveils-400-Qubit-Plus-Quantum-Processor-and-Next-Generation-IBM-Quantum-System-Two

Quote

As IBM Quantum systems scale up towards the stated goal of 4,000+ qubits by 2025 and beyond, they will go beyond the current capabilities of existing physical electronics. IBM updated the details of the new IBM Quantum System Two, a system designed to be modular and flexible, combining multiple processors into a single system with communication links.

 

Just now, iNow said:

Jesus you’re foolish sometimes for what appears to be an otherwise intelligent individual. They’re already working on it and we should see more in about a year… but the underlying principles have been laid out for several years already. 
 

https://newsroom.ibm.com/2022-11-09-IBM-Unveils-400-Qubit-Plus-Quantum-Processor-and-Next-Generation-IBM-Quantum-System-Two

 

That's multiprocessor, not multi-unit in series, genius.

Ah… so your entire criticism of my earlier point was another semantic one. No wonder we’re going nowhere fast 

1 minute ago, iNow said:

Ah… so your entire criticism of my earlier point was another semantic one. No wonder we’re going nowhere fast 

Uh, no. You just have no idea what you're talking about.

Just merely using the term "in series" made it nonsensical.

Enlighten me. How is adding parallelism through networked quantum computers (serially, non-serially, whatever) not a way to enhance speed and performance overall? Why do you steadfastly propose that too is impossible?

Edited January 8, 20241 yr by iNow

I don't even have to compose replies now, I just have to copy pasta previous ones because apparently they got read but not absorbed:

 

Quote

Didn't say it's impossible to string units up in series- I just said if that's the way to raise performance than it would already been done.

Again, what's gotten into you?

 

Fine, tell me why "it would already have been done" if it were possible... when it's still being worked on? The only thing which has "gotten into me" is a desire to understand your objection and ensure my own stance is accurate. Will you help with that?

"If it were possible, it would already have been done." How do you accept this as valid when clearly there are other reasons which may explain the delay?

First, let's clear up what I said and didn't say..............

This is what I wrote (bolded by me)...
 

Quote

...I don't think that's the way to increase quantum computing performance, since if that were the case it would already been done.

It's not about anything being possible or not. [insert my past mental whiplash experiences with people in various forums saying what they think I said etc]

They can have separate machines hooked up. That's not the way to do it and that's not the way they're developing it anyhow.

They're putting multiple processors in ONE MACHINE and as far as all practicalities are concerned, should be ON ONE SYSTEM MOTHERBOARD, working in parallel.

 

(even doing something like having 2 processors on 2 daughterboards standing on one mainboard makes no sense here)

If they're doing it on separate boards, it would only mean the system is a bit too unwieldy to have it on one board. It would still need to be in one machine.

I’m simply defining “machine” in a broader way than you. Have fun. 

On 1/8/2024 at 1:17 AM, iNow said:

It’s either systems the size of football fields or parallelism across multiple networked systems to make additional qbits available.

 

Quote

Richard Feynman's observation that certain quantum mechanical effects cannot be simulated efficiently on a computer led to speculation that computation in general could be done more efficiently if it used these quantum effects. This speculation proved justified when Peter Shor described a polynomial time quantum algorithm for factoring intergers.

In quantum systems, the computational space increases exponentially with the size of the system, which enables exponential parallelism. This parallelism could lead to exponentially faster quantum algorithms than possible classically. The catch is that accessing the results, which requires measurement, proves tricky and requires new nontraditional programming techniques.

https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/367701.367709

 

Edited January 9, 20241 yr by StringJunky

39 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

In quantum systems, the computational space increases exponentially with the size of the system, which enables exponential parallelism. This parallelism could lead to exponentially faster quantum algorithms than possible classically

This is a much cleaner way of saying the exact same thing I was previously attempting to communicate here. Thx for the contribution