How far away from the practical .....

[peter]

......application of quantum computing are we? I mean, have we actually developed one that actually works yet - even if on the sort of humongous scale and highly limited power of the first binary computers of the fifties - or is it all in reality still just theoretical math? Moving on, if the math says it's possible, then does that mean that it is possible, it's just that we're not technically accomplished enough yet to build it? Finally, if developed, would it scale down over the years until it could practically be used within the domestic arena in the same way that computers have over the past few decades?

[Vraith]

Good question.
At least three companies have machines for sale that they CLAIM are quantum-computing.
It seems that literally no one is completely sure whether they are or not...[last I looked, it's been nearly a year by now, I think].
Also, last I knew, there was greater progress on the mechanics of it...entangling, error-correcting, and stabilizing...than there was on the software to make it work.
Somewhere recently I saw a blurb that IBM had theoretical and simulated proof of concept for a serious machine---beyond any computer of any kind that exists now.
I also saw a claimed proof showing that building quantum is a waste of time, because they actually won't/can't work any faster or more efficiently than ordinary machines, will always be far more difficult/expensive to build for the same speed/power.

And no, just cuz math says something doesn't mean it is also materially possible. A LOT of mathematical things---I'd even say the vast majority of mathematical things---are not instantiatable. [which is NOT to say they aren't true, necessary, useful, valuable, informative].

[peter]

Just on the last point V, can math be applied in a way that differentiates between that which is capable of being actualised and that which is and will remain purely theoretical - or is the mathematician forever mired in a state where he/she can't see the wood for the trees (in which case presumably only experiment can sort out the difference)?

[Skyweir]

Im just gonna sit here quietly and bask in the brilliance of V

[peter]

We need David Deutsch to make a guest appearance on The Watch here to get a view from the front line!

[Cord Hurn]

Im just gonna sit here quietly and bask in the brilliance of V

[Vraith]

Just on the last point V, can math be applied in a way that differentiates between that which is capable of being actualised and that which is and will remain purely theoretical - or is the mathematician forever mired in a state where he/she can't see the wood for the trees (in which case presumably only experiment can sort out the difference)?

Well---interesting question. I don't know...but I have some things to say on it.
First, though, lets not make a mistake:
The problem isn't that math is theoretical. Much of it isn't. The difficulty is that it is abstract, and applying/converting it to concrete. There are other difficulties, too---it is axiomatic. It is formal.
There are many effective ways to manage these, though. [[one way: gaps/incompleteness/non sequiturs/whatever can be filled by using a different kind of math]]

And "close enoughness" exists. For instance---there is no possible way to create a one dimensional line materially. But it is close enough to be useful for a one-dimensional string of atoms.

Some "areas" will almost always find a use, I suspect---most things in the geometric fields a likely one.

Also, some things that seem useless/inapplicable become so---not because of what "is," but because of what we do. Examples--two things I'm not absolutely sure of, cuz I don't know that much of math/mathematicians history, but I THINK they're true:

There are noncommmutative maths [[unlike "normal," x times y is NOT the same result as y times x. Just one thing--there's lots more strangeness]]
When it was first discovered, I'm pretty sure it had no practical use at all---but now it has multiple branches and many uses...in "natural" things, like physics---but also uses in non-natural things like computer graphics.

Or---you know we've got a new largest prime number? In the beginning, primes were interesting mostly to pure number peoples. They assumed they had no embodied/practical uses, but loved them anyway [abstractly---at least I hope there weren't any prime fuckers] But they're essential right now for a number of things, but especially encryption--so, the entirety of the net, at least.

I doubt the prediction/determination in advance of usefulness can be mathematically investigated/formalized.
But we can't forget that many impossible [in materialization terms] things are absolutely indispensable because they are inseparable from things that ARE materially real/useful. [[the distance of a mile, in a deep, but abstract, way is literally incoherent without the impossible distance of negative one mile]].

And, since I'm on a roll here---I know I've said before that there is no such thing as the "unreasonable effectiveness" of math, because it seems eminently reasonable for math to be effective...I just want to say further thinking has made me even more extreme/radical.
It is completely IRRATIONAL to think mathematical effectiveness is unreasonable. It would be astonishing, unfathomable, if mathematics WASN't effective.
Just have to make sure not to confuse the directions, though.
Math does not cause or determine the physical...a coherent/stable physicality causes some maths to be descriptive, and the reality's shape/nature determines WHICH maths [and/or which pieces of particular maths] will be descriptive.
Not just groundlessly spewing here---a fair number of the most important mathematical discoveries in the last few decades have been born from physics.
Funny/weird, perhaps, but true: M and String theories have been more fruitful/successful in finding/creating new math and tools than new physics.

Of course, at least in my view, it is also important to remember that a description is almost never an explanation.
What and how are not why.
Facts are not Truth.
Information is not meaning.

Even FURTHER off topic: Cord, where the hell did you find that sun????
I don't recall seeing it in our emoticon list before. [[maybe because I'm sealed up---don't share my emoticons freely. Love it.

[peter]

Gratitude for your post V. Much to think on!



(Also loved Cord's sun! Perhaps we could update our emoticon page to include some new 'jazzy' ones like that.)

[Skyweir]

www.cqc2t.org

[peter]

It's clearly being taken really seriously there Skyweir - just the kind of serious practical assault on a problem that will ultimately lead to breakthroughs in the field.

[Skyweir]

Seems like it .. there a little ahead of themselves .. Australia Day Awards have already been received .. but yes for incorporating the problem, not actually solving it just yet

[Vraith]

Sure, it's being taken seriously.
By the haters, too

https://www.quantamagazine.org/gil-kala ... -20180207/

[peter]

Now this guy has it right; he's sceptical- and has outlined his reasons for being so, but in the best traditions of good science, seems happy to be proven wrong if such be the case. Respect.

[Cord Hurn]

www.cqc2t.org

Michelle Simmons' work is indeed likely to create tremendous improvements in data storage and communication---I can only imagine how much!

[Cord Hurn]

Now this guy has it right; he's sceptical- and has outlined his reasons for being so, but in the best traditions of good science, seems happy to be proven wrong if such be the case. Respect.

...And I like that, peter, the attitude that discovered and proven facts matter more than ego/reputation/potential for wealth do.

[samrw3]

When I was reading and reflecting about this - my question would be - how could some analysis be done to ensure that quantum computing was working and achieving accurate results?

If corruption is a problem then throwing another machine that performs quantum calculations will not solve that problem because now we have another possibility of corruption comparing to unknown state of corruption.

Even if you could have smaller computers produce the same results as the quantum computing - just slower-how could we assure that the quantum computing is consistently achieving accurate results each computing result? It would be no good to constantly check results at a smaller scale.

I imagine the one way to scientifically perform this would be perform enough checks at a smaller scale to satisfy the results within a certain probability of no errors (we are 99.9998% sure the results of the quantum calculations are correct because of smaller scale calculations - that type of thing)

Anyways - that is the thing that I am struggling with.

[Vraith]

When I was reading and reflecting about this - my question would be - how could some analysis be done to ensure that quantum computing was working and achieving accurate results?

If corruption is a problem then throwing another machine that performs quantum calculations will not solve that problem because now we have another possibility of corruption comparing to unknown state of corruption.

Even if you could have smaller computers produce the same results as the quantum computing - just slower-how could we assure that the quantum computing is consistently achieving accurate results each computing result? It would be no good to constantly check results at a smaller scale.

I imagine the one way to scientifically perform this would be perform enough checks at a smaller scale to satisfy the results within a certain probability of no errors (we are 99.9998% sure the results of the quantum calculations are correct because of smaller scale calculations - that type of thing)

Anyways - that is the thing that I am struggling with.

The answer to this, I THINK, is that in almost all [[maybe all, I don't know--we are way the hell out in math/computer/algo-land for this]] hard cases checking/verifying an answer is vastly simpler than solving the equation to begin with.
And, in general, according to all the things I've run across, the ONLY kind of problems quantum provides a significant advantage for ARE the hard problems. [[there is a prize for anyone who can demonstrate a general way to SOLVE hard problems as quickly as CHECKING solutions...or, I believe, to prove the opposite: that there is no possible way to solve as quickly as check.]]

[samrw3]

I agree Vraith that it is easier to check then solve.

However, let me backup. I am an accountant by trade and have seen my number of screw-ups. Some by assumptions, some by human error, some by faulty coding, some by laziness (one time one accountant did not check that a formula was not a formula but a typed in result - thus produced the same result no matter the numbers on top of it [in other words they had typed in a result and not a formula sign] and sometimes a matter of all these variables.

If quantum computing is computing such complicated results and because they are so complex there is no easy way to verify results. Then it just nags at me that answers are produced with possible corruption with problematic analysis.

Let's give a more concrete example - the article below talks about a difficult equation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_versus_NP_problem

Now lets say someone states that they have solved this via quantum computing how will anyone that does not have quantum computing know if corruption seeped into the results. Then those with quantum computing will have the same possibility of corruption or differing corruptions.

I don't know I am probably just driving myself crazy with this because my attitude is - everything is wrong until I prove it right

[Vraith]

I don't know I am probably just driving myself crazy with this because my attitude is - everything is wrong until I prove it right

First, P/NP was exactly what I was thinking of.

On the above---you're not the only one in the crazy.
Error correction is a big deal even for standard computers...but there are ways to deal with it.
One big problem for QC's is that those methods don't work...at least some of them do the exact opposite, they increase the odds of error/corruption.
Last I heard IBM and someone else came up with different ways of detecting errors/corruption [IBM's used entanglement, I don't remember what the other was]...but, unlike with ordinary machines, they can't correct the mistake. [[It's like the Pakled in Star Trek "Our ship is broken. We need help." Or that commercial: "I'm not a guard. I'm a monitor. I only notify people if there's a robbery...............................There's a robbery."

[samrw3]

Interesting. I guess that is why we have some of these people develop this stuff. All I know is it way beyond me.

I know this was a very simplistic book and some of the action took over the science but some of my skepticism comes from Dan Brown's book Digital Fortress. The book in short is how humans influenced advanced super computer coding in a such a way that others could not detect that it was influenced, or even if it was influenced - in what ways it was influenced.

I just hoping that scientists and mathematicians place enough QC and scientific rigor to ensure the results are good or proper warnings are issued.