truthiness said:
I'm using the fact that we know functionally very little to say that they won't be in consumer level devices in twenty years. And yes, history is a good sign that absurdly large problems don't solve themselves in a matter of time. Referring to the atomic bomb is a pointless analogy. Are you trying to claim that within 20 years of their work they had consumer level atomic bombs? Or are you trying to claim that we will not only gain that knowledge, but implement it into a consumer level device immediately, with every software house immediately switching to that...architecture? Medium? As for your knowledge of quantum mechanics - errr good for you? I mean it's good that you read, and you should continue, but that doesn't change the fact that your knowledge of quantum computing is lacking. I mean it is one thing to not look puzzled with superposition (though you should), but its another thing entirely to pull 20 years out of your rear. Had you looked at the issue at hand its not just a matter of one or two small things, its a matter of mastering basic problems that took over 100 years, that is one hundred years, to be solved in regular computing. Without Boulean alegebra or the babbage machine in the 19th century, computers would still be in their infancy. Without Grace Murray Hopper, computers would just be little boxes that lit up. All of these steps happened over a long period of time, and were in a field that no one had invested in. And that's the cold hard reality of it, computers are a developed industry that aren't going to fundamentally change everything in twenty years. Look back at Consumer level computers - theres a thirty year gap between ENIAC and the 4004. That was the birth of a market. The current market is established, and it's either going to be extremely cautious to adopt, or its going to take a new market, for anything to come of it. Don't discount reality when you make wild assumptions. History has a way of repeating itself and running over those who seem to ignore it with hand waving. |
Yeah that may be true but the difference now is that technology advances at a faster pace than technology in earlier years because there are alot more people taking occupations in scientific fields and there is more funds put into it. So maybe not 20 years as I said ( which I agree I pulled out of my ass) but that was just an estimate I made. SSJ12 said that we could see quantum computers in about 5 years go mainstream. The point of the quantum mechanics is that I have knowlege of how things work on an atomic level which quantum computers do. Also people aren't starting completely from nothing like regular computers. So 20 years is a good estimate but I might revise it to 30 years because thats when moore's law starts to be meaningless. I just wanted to prove that I have some knowlege to know about how quantum computers work in my last post, because you said that all of my knowlege was based off the youtube video. It doesn't even matter when quantum computers become mainstream (which they will eventualy if we don't find even something better) the point of this thread was to see how well games would improve on quantum computers.