Beyond quantum computers
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Climate Change
Next: The AGW Smoking Gun
From: BURT on 17 Feb 2010 19:49 On Feb 17, 2:37 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 16, 5:55 pm, Urion <blackman_...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > What do you think could be the next type of computers, i mean even > > more advanced or faster than quantum computers? > > > Classical computers even those relying on nanotechnology as do > > nanoelectronic processors are nothing new because those are still > > classical computers. Spintronics and optoelectronics could provide > > faster processors and memories in the future but those are still > > classical forms of computers. Superconducter digital electronics could > > provide energy-efficient computers but I think that even those type of > > computers are still classical. > > > Quantum computers are another big step forward in computation speed > > and are very efficient in solving some problems like simulating > > quantum mechanics. > > > My question is: What do you think will be an even more advanced type > > of computer, even faster and more efficient at solving certain > > problems than quantum computers? > > Current systems are not as efficient as they could be. > > One major problem in any computer system is error latency (an error > getting through the system to an observable point so it can be > diagnosed and fixed to avoid bogging the system down with superfluous > cycles not used in actually doing the calculation). Code must be run > through a system, the outputs examined, and discovered bugs fixed, > then the code run through again. Lather, rinse, repeat until ALL the > bugs are gone. But there may be a better way : > > http://www.computer.org/portal/web/top-takes/home/-/blogs/debugging-u... > > Mark L. Fergerson- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - What kind of bugs do you have in your hair?
From: jmfbahciv on 18 Feb 2010 07:49 nuny(a)bid.nes wrote: > On Feb 16, 5:55 pm, Urion <blackman_...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> What do you think could be the next type of computers, i mean even >> more advanced or faster than quantum computers? >> >> Classical computers even those relying on nanotechnology as do >> nanoelectronic processors are nothing new because those are still >> classical computers. Spintronics and optoelectronics could provide >> faster processors and memories in the future but those are still >> classical forms of computers. Superconducter digital electronics could >> provide energy-efficient computers but I think that even those type of >> computers are still classical. >> >> Quantum computers are another big step forward in computation speed >> and are very efficient in solving some problems like simulating >> quantum mechanics. >> >> My question is: What do you think will be an even more advanced type >> of computer, even faster and more efficient at solving certain >> problems than quantum computers? > > Current systems are not as efficient as they could be. Efficiency is not an easy thing to define. What is efficient for me will be inefficient for you. > > One major problem in any computer system is error latency (an error > getting through the system to an observable point so it can be > diagnosed and fixed to avoid bogging the system down with superfluous > cycles not used in actually doing the calculation). Code must be run > through a system, the outputs examined, and discovered bugs fixed, > then the code run through again. Lather, rinse, repeat until ALL the > bugs are gone. But there may be a better way : > > http://www.computer.org/portal/web/top-takes/home/-/blogs/debugging-using-resublimated-thiotimoline;jsessionid=7a70aea780d810b531f3cd336365?_33_redirect=%2Fportal%2Fc%2Fportal%2Flayout%3Fp_l_id%3D777575 > > There is, as usual, another exception. There exist code which requires wrong behavior. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 18 Feb 2010 07:52 kvahunt wrote: > On Feb 17, 8:29 am, Uncle Al <Uncle...(a)hate.spam.net> wrote: > <snip ...> >> Add water and that is a >> big vat with slow kinetics. Then you have the unknown hazards of >> "processor" disposal. >> >> -- >> Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ >> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm > > Soup for the masses! > You just said an extremely funny line but understanding it would require knowing my particular neck of the comoputer biz. Our program to merge code was called SOUP. And one piece of hardware was Massbus. /BAH
From: kvahunt on 18 Feb 2010 13:00 On Feb 18, 4:52 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > kvahunt wrote: > > On Feb 17, 8:29 am, Uncle Al <Uncle...(a)hate.spam.net> wrote: > > <snip ...> > >> Add water and that is a > >> big vat with slow kinetics. Then you have the unknown hazards of > >> "processor" disposal. > > >> -- > >> Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ > >> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm > > > Soup for the masses! > > You just said an extremely funny line but understanding it would > require knowing my particular neck of the comoputer biz. > > Our program to merge code was called SOUP. And one piece of > hardware was Massbus. > > /BAH I'm glad I could 'help', even unwittingly... Was the Massbus in Boston? Kevin
From: jmfbahciv on 19 Feb 2010 09:25
kvahunt wrote: > On Feb 18, 4:52 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: >> kvahunt wrote: >>> On Feb 17, 8:29 am, Uncle Al <Uncle...(a)hate.spam.net> wrote: >>> <snip ...> >>>> Add water and that is a >>>> big vat with slow kinetics. Then you have the unknown hazards of >>>> "processor" disposal. >>>> -- >>>> Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ >>>> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm >>> Soup for the masses! >> You just said an extremely funny line but understanding it would >> require knowing my particular neck of the comoputer biz. >> >> Our program to merge code was called SOUP. And one piece of >> hardware was Massbus. >> >> /BAH > > I'm glad I could 'help', even unwittingly... Was the Massbus in > Boston? > Very good. I hadn't thought of that. :-) Just west of it. /BAH |