IBM quantum experience

keepit wrote: research.ibm.com/quantum. See for your self

keepit wrote: ibd, I'm not gullible.

IBdaMann wrote:

keepit wrote: ibd, I'm not gullible.

It would appear that you believe yourself to be very gullible, seeing as how you EVADED every single one of my questions.

Don't worry, you're not alone. There are support groups for people like you, whether or not you can't get anyone to like you.

Answer the questions.

HarveyH55 wrote:I believe there is quantum computing, just not magic quantum computers.

HarveyH55 wrote:
I believe there is quantum computing, just not magic quantum computers. These are related, but separate approaches to a different kind of computer.

Traditional computers use transistors as switches. The simplest, most basic use of a transistor. Which has been good enough for decades. But, a transistor can be used for so many other things, besides a simple switch. I don't believe there is an actual quantum physics computer. There is a different silicon-based architecture, still using transistors, that emulate how a quantum computer should work. It's really clever marketing, since creating the new hardware is expensive, and unknown if they can achieve major improvements in speed and power. They know they have to design and fabricate a lot of generations of the processors, and see what happens, improve on them. Lot of time and money to invest, with little to market for a while. There have been software emulations for a while, running on traditional computers.

The terminology loosely still applies, since the goal is to simulate the quantum physics theory of operation with silicon transistors. There does seem to be projects, where some researchers are trying to harness actual quantum particles, which aren't working out so well. But, if people are willing to pay... And the people willing to pay, don't really understand which approach they are funding, or even care.

For most people, they barely use the processing power of the computers they already have. The need for more powerful computers is mainly commercial, industrial, and government. I think the goal is to reduce the need of individual computers in the population. We will get reduced to communication devices, that access central computers. Laptops have already been reduced in many cases. Very little resources on the device, that connects to the 'cloud' for storage, and online apps to do the work. All subscription based, of course... Secure, is a relative term with these services. The devices and services will still share what you work on, marketing data, government surveillance.

Swan wrote:Tell us more about your belief that the Earth is flat and how this makes entanglement impossible. Everyone needs your brilliance.

keepit wrote:ibd,
This might help you a little, or at least make you less annoying - when a person says "i read such and such on the internet", the fact that it was read on the internet doesn't give it any more credibility than the things you say. It means that the internet statement should be read with an appropriate level of doubt. It's kind of like a caution to avoid too much reliance on the statement.

keepit wrote:That i should get a better understanding of quantum computing. You should too because you're just bickering without knowing what you're talking about.

keepit wrote: ibd, You're not helpful because you've lost your credibility.

keepit wrote:
ibd,
I'm not gullible. I don't believe a thing you say.

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

keepit wrote: ibd, I'm not gullible.

It would appear that you believe yourself to be very gullible, seeing as how you EVADED every single one of my questions.

Don't worry, you're not alone. There are support groups for people like you, whether or not you can't get anyone to like you.

Answer the questions.

Dude the only reason that you believe that everyone must answer your questions is because of your delusions of grandeur that have made you the king of the internet in your own feeble mind. So you must really accept that no one answers to you, and that no one on the Earth takes you seriously. However I do find you amusing

HarveyH55 wrote:
I believe there is quantum computing, just not magic quantum computers. These are related, but separate approaches to a different kind of computer.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Traditional computers use transistors as switches. The simplest, most basic use of a transistor. Which has been good enough for decades.

HarveyH55 wrote:
But, a transistor can be used for so many other things, besides a simple switch.

HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't believe there is an actual quantum physics computer. There is a different silicon-based architecture, still using transistors, that emulate how a quantum computer should work.

HarveyH55 wrote:
It's really clever marketing, since creating the new hardware is expensive, and unknown if they can achieve major improvements in speed and power. They know they have to design and fabricate a lot of generations of the processors, and see what happens, improve on them. Lot of time and money to invest, with little to market for a while.

HarveyH55 wrote:
There have been software emulations for a while, running on traditional computers.

HarveyH55 wrote:
The terminology loosely still applies, since the goal is to simulate the quantum physics theory of operation with silicon transistors.

HarveyH55 wrote:
There does seem to be projects, where some researchers are trying to harness actual quantum particles, which aren't working out so well. But, if people are willing to pay... And the people willing to pay, don't really understand which approach they are funding, or even care.

HarveyH55 wrote:
For most people, they barely use the processing power of the computers they already have.

HarveyH55 wrote:
The need for more powerful computers is mainly commercial, industrial, and government. I think the goal is to reduce the need of individual computers in the population. We will get reduced to communication devices, that access central computers.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Laptops have already been reduced in many cases. Very little resources on the device, that connects to the 'cloud' for storage, and online apps to do the work. All subscription based, of course...

HarveyH55 wrote:
Secure, is a relative term with these services. The devices and services will still share what you work on, marketing data, government surveillance.

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
I believe there is quantum computing, just not magic quantum computers. These are related, but separate approaches to a different kind of computer.

Traditional computers use transistors as switches. The simplest, most basic use of a transistor. Which has been good enough for decades. But, a transistor can be used for so many other things, besides a simple switch. I don't believe there is an actual quantum physics computer. There is a different silicon-based architecture, still using transistors, that emulate how a quantum computer should work. It's really clever marketing, since creating the new hardware is expensive, and unknown if they can achieve major improvements in speed and power. They know they have to design and fabricate a lot of generations of the processors, and see what happens, improve on them. Lot of time and money to invest, with little to market for a while. There have been software emulations for a while, running on traditional computers.

The terminology loosely still applies, since the goal is to simulate the quantum physics theory of operation with silicon transistors. There does seem to be projects, where some researchers are trying to harness actual quantum particles, which aren't working out so well. But, if people are willing to pay... And the people willing to pay, don't really understand which approach they are funding, or even care.

For most people, they barely use the processing power of the computers they already have. The need for more powerful computers is mainly commercial, industrial, and government. I think the goal is to reduce the need of individual computers in the population. We will get reduced to communication devices, that access central computers. Laptops have already been reduced in many cases. Very little resources on the device, that connects to the 'cloud' for storage, and online apps to do the work. All subscription based, of course... Secure, is a relative term with these services. The devices and services will still share what you work on, marketing data, government surveillance.

Tell us ...

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Tell us more about your belief that the Earth is flat and how this makes entanglement impossible. Everyone needs your brilliance.

You are very humorous when you are desperately defensive. At level 1 Swan panic, you try to reroute the delusion-busting discussion with an "Actually" followed by some unrelated topic.

At level 2 Swan panic, you fully pivot with a change of topic, clinging to some true statement that is safely irrelevant to the threatening point being established.

At level 3 Swan panic, you resort to assigning bogus positions while insisting others explain these positions they do not hold ... as you hope and pray that you can weather the storm long enough for it to just go away.

Let's throw your statement back at you and see how you deal with it:

1. Swan, tell us more about your belief that the Earth is flat and how this makes entanglement possible. Everyone needs your brilliance.

2. Swan, tell us more about your belief that the Earth is flat and how this enables your omniscience of the unobserved, distant past. Everyone needs your brilliance.

3. Swan, tell us more about your belief that the Earth is flat and how this somehow makes amphibious animals not amphibious. Everyone needs your brilliance.

4. Swan, tell us more about your belief that the Earth is flat and how this makes the FBI capable of performing all of the DoD's background investigations. Everyone needs your brilliance.

5. Swan, tell us more about your belief that the Earth is flat and how this prevents two or more bonded atoms from being a molecule. Everyone needs your brilliance.

6. Swan, tell us more about your belief that the Earth is flat and how this makes moraines out of ordinary stones. Everyone needs your brilliance.

7. Swan, tell us more about your belief that the Earth is flat and how this transforms your relegation to living off what you can grow in your garden into a right to run down people in the park. Everyone needs your brilliance.

.

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Tell us more about your belief that the Earth is flat and how this makes entanglement impossible. Everyone needs your brilliance.

You are very humorous when you are desperately defensive. At level 1 Swan panic, you try to reroute the delusion-busting discussion with an "Actually" followed by some unrelated topic.

At level 2 Swan panic, you fully pivot with a change of topic, clinging to some true statement that is safely irrelevant to the threatening point being established.

At level 3 Swan panic, you resort to assigning bogus positions while insisting others explain these positions they do not hold ... as you hope and pray that you can weather the storm long enough for it to just go away.

Let's throw your statement back at you and see how you deal with it:

1. Swan, tell us more about your belief that the Earth is flat and how this makes entanglement possible. Everyone needs your brilliance.

2. Swan, tell us more about your belief that the Earth is flat and how this enables your omniscience of the unobserved, distant past. Everyone needs your brilliance.

3. Swan, tell us more about your belief that the Earth is flat and how this somehow makes amphibious animals not amphibious. Everyone needs your brilliance.

4. Swan, tell us more about your belief that the Earth is flat and how this makes the FBI capable of performing all of the DoD's background investigations. Everyone needs your brilliance.

5. Swan, tell us more about your belief that the Earth is flat and how this prevents two or more bonded atoms from being a molecule. Everyone needs your brilliance.

6. Swan, tell us more about your belief that the Earth is flat and how this makes moraines out of ordinary stones. Everyone needs your brilliance.

7. Swan, tell us more about your belief that the Earth is flat and how this transforms your relegation to living off what you can grow in your garden into a right to run down people in the park. Everyone needs your brilliance.

.

If stephen king wrote that I would still not read it. But at least you had fun writing it for no one.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Tell us more about your belief that the Earth is flat and how this makes entanglement impossible. Everyone needs your brilliance.

You are very humorous when you are desperately defensive. At level 1 Swan panic, you try to reroute the delusion-busting discussion with an "Actually" followed by some unrelated topic.

At level 2 Swan panic, you fully pivot with a change of topic, clinging to some true statement that is safely irrelevant to the threatening point being established.

At level 3 Swan panic, you resort to assigning bogus positions while insisting others explain these positions they do not hold ... as you hope and pray that you can weather the storm long enough for it to just go away.

Let's throw your statement back at you and see how you deal with it:

1. Swan, tell us more about your belief that the Earth is flat and how this makes entanglement possible. Everyone needs your brilliance.

2. Swan, tell us more about your belief that the Earth is flat and how this enables your omniscience of the unobserved, distant past. Everyone needs your brilliance.

3. Swan, tell us more about your belief that the Earth is flat and how this somehow makes amphibious animals not amphibious. Everyone needs your brilliance.

4. Swan, tell us more about your belief that the Earth is flat and how this makes the FBI capable of performing all of the DoD's background investigations. Everyone needs your brilliance.

5. Swan, tell us more about your belief that the Earth is flat and how this prevents two or more bonded atoms from being a molecule. Everyone needs your brilliance.

6. Swan, tell us more about your belief that the Earth is flat and how this makes moraines out of ordinary stones. Everyone needs your brilliance.

7. Swan, tell us more about your belief that the Earth is flat and how this transforms your relegation to living off what you can grow in your garden into a right to run down people in the park. Everyone needs your brilliance.

.

If stephen king wrote that I would still not read it. But at least you had fun writing it for no one.

Well, I did write it for you, and you read every word, so I'm happy.

... but you really should get off the computer and spend a little more quality time with your eggplants.

.

keepit wrote:
I just read the whole quantum ibm article and didn't get much out of it. Seemed mostly like a bunch of buzzwords that i didn't understand.

keepit wrote:
What is this thing about splitting photons in two? You're not confusing "beam splitting" with quantum computers are you?

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Tell us more about your belief that the Earth is flat and how this makes entanglement impossible. Everyone needs your brilliance.

You are very humorous when you are desperately defensive. At level 1 Swan panic, you try to reroute the delusion-busting discussion with an "Actually" followed by some unrelated topic.

At level 2 Swan panic, you fully pivot with a change of topic, clinging to some true statement that is safely irrelevant to the threatening point being established.

At level 3 Swan panic, you resort to assigning bogus positions while insisting others explain these positions they do not hold ... as you hope and pray that you can weather the storm long enough for it to just go away.

Let's throw your statement back at you and see how you deal with it:

1. Swan, tell us more about your belief that the Earth is flat and how this makes entanglement possible. Everyone needs your brilliance.

2. Swan, tell us more about your belief that the Earth is flat and how this enables your omniscience of the unobserved, distant past. Everyone needs your brilliance.

3. Swan, tell us more about your belief that the Earth is flat and how this somehow makes amphibious animals not amphibious. Everyone needs your brilliance.

4. Swan, tell us more about your belief that the Earth is flat and how this makes the FBI capable of performing all of the DoD's background investigations. Everyone needs your brilliance.

5. Swan, tell us more about your belief that the Earth is flat and how this prevents two or more bonded atoms from being a molecule. Everyone needs your brilliance.

6. Swan, tell us more about your belief that the Earth is flat and how this makes moraines out of ordinary stones. Everyone needs your brilliance.

7. Swan, tell us more about your belief that the Earth is flat and how this transforms your relegation to living off what you can grow in your garden into a right to run down people in the park. Everyone needs your brilliance.

.

If stephen king wrote that I would still not read it. But at least you had fun writing it for no one.

Well, I did write it for you, and you read every word, so I'm happy.

... but you really should get off the computer and spend a little more quality time with your eggplants.

.

If you post one or two sentences then I read, any more than that I just laugh and move on as I marvel at the local manic depressive clown whos delusions of grandeur tell him that everyone reads his rambles.

CIAO

IBdaMann wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:I believe there is quantum computing, just not magic quantum computers.

Then you must have some idea of what that means, because thus far, the term "quantum computing" is entirely a hardware thing, i.e. splitting photons, applying a physical gate to each half, transporting the two halves to their distantly separate respective locations and then writing at least one digital value to one of the entangled photon halves.

Not only does this explain why there are no quantum computers, it also explains by extension, why there is no quantum computing.

Am I mistaken in some regard?

In your opinion, can quantum computing be accomplished on standard computers? If so, how does this type of "computing" differ from the standard computing that we enjoy today?

.

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Tell us more about your belief that the Earth is flat and how this makes entanglement impossible. Everyone needs your brilliance.

You are very humorous when you are desperately defensive. At level 1 Swan panic, you try to reroute the delusion-busting discussion with an "Actually" followed by some unrelated topic.

At level 2 Swan panic, you fully pivot with a change of topic, clinging to some true statement that is safely irrelevant to the threatening point being established.

At level 3 Swan panic, you resort to assigning bogus positions while insisting others explain these positions they do not hold ... as you hope and pray that you can weather the storm long enough for it to just go away.

Let's throw your statement back at you and see how you deal with it:

1. Swan, tell us more about your belief that the Earth is flat and how this makes entanglement possible. Everyone needs your brilliance.

2. Swan, tell us more about your belief that the Earth is flat and how this enables your omniscience of the unobserved, distant past. Everyone needs your brilliance.

3. Swan, tell us more about your belief that the Earth is flat and how this somehow makes amphibious animals not amphibious. Everyone needs your brilliance.

4. Swan, tell us more about your belief that the Earth is flat and how this makes the FBI capable of performing all of the DoD's background investigations. Everyone needs your brilliance.

5. Swan, tell us more about your belief that the Earth is flat and how this prevents two or more bonded atoms from being a molecule. Everyone needs your brilliance.

6. Swan, tell us more about your belief that the Earth is flat and how this makes moraines out of ordinary stones. Everyone needs your brilliance.

7. Swan, tell us more about your belief that the Earth is flat and how this transforms your relegation to living off what you can grow in your garden into a right to run down people in the park. Everyone needs your brilliance.

.

If stephen king wrote that I would still not read it. But at least you had fun writing it for no one.

Well, I did write it for you, and you read every word, so I'm happy.

... but you really should get off the computer and spend a little more quality time with your eggplants.

.

If you post one or two sentences then I read, any more than that I just laugh and move on as I marvel at the local manic depressive clown whos delusions of grandeur tell him that everyone reads his rambles.

CIAO

Argument of the Stone fallacy, Sock.

keepit wrote:I don't remember who mentioned splitting photons in two but could you explain what you're talking about?

I see now, it was ibd who mentioned splitting photons. What did you mean?

IBdaMann wrote:

keepit wrote:I don't remember who mentioned splitting photons in two but could you explain what you're talking about?

I see now, it was ibd who mentioned splitting photons. What did you mean?

That's the photon "entanglement" part of the scam. There is no such thing as splitting a photon. Max Planck established the concept of EM quanta. This means you can't really have a fraction of a quantum, thus you can't have half a photon. Nonetheless, the purveyors of the scam developed a phony sales pitch for the consumption of the "gullible & greedy."

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Argument of the Stone fallacy, Sock.

Apology...

Robert Wagner wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

keepit wrote:I don't remember who mentioned splitting photons in two but could you explain what you're talking about?

I see now, it was ibd who mentioned splitting photons. What did you mean?

That's the photon "entanglement" part of the scam. There is no such thing as splitting a photon. Max Planck established the concept of EM quanta. This means you can't really have a fraction of a quantum, thus you can't have half a photon. Nonetheless, the purveyors of the scam developed a phony sales pitch for the consumption of the "gullible & greedy."

Too bad you don't understand the differences of photons and quants.

https://physics.aps.org/story/v10/st3

keepit wrote:
RW,
What is the definition of "quant" in the usage here?

keepit wrote:ibd, Like is said, i don't believe a word you say.

keepit wrote: There's too much baloney mixed in with a few accurate statements.

keepit wrote: It's not worth sorting it out.

IBdaMann wrote:

keepit wrote:ibd, Like is said, i don't believe a word you say.

Wait a minute, why do you then ask me questions? Why do you come to me for answers?

keepit wrote: There's too much baloney mixed in with a few accurate statements.

How do you pretend to know this when you don't know anything about the subject matter and you can't distinguish baloney from accurate statements?

keepit wrote: It's not worth sorting it out.

Why do you pretend you are somehow able to sort it out?

You really do write the stupidest shit, and then contradict yourself with more stupid shit.

Just put all your money into quantum computing and be done with it. In fact, why haven't you done so already? Is it because you understand and accept everything I wrote?

.