>Turing proved that there are some calculations computers can't do>Every machine that can do all the computations possible by a computer is called a Turing complete computer>Quantum computers can do calculations that classical computers can'tSo are quantum computers capable of transcending mathematics or are vlassical computers not real Turing machines? What's going on?
>>17039377I don't have a formal proof but every quantum computer can be simulated classically to arbitrary precision with finite resources so QC cannot be more powerful conceptually, only have better performance.I can give you a proof sketch for why QC can always be simulated, but it boils down to the fact you can approximate e^x as a polynomial for any finite x
>>17039377who cares, do something useful and stop thinking about this garbage. I bet you cant change your own oil
>>17039377>>Turing proved that there are some calculations computers can't dohis computers*
>>17039449The halting argument applies to any computer
>>17039460get a life
>>17039461am I wrong though?
>>17039460no it does not migger
>>17039467yes it does nigger
>>17039469no it does not migger
>>17039377Quantum computers are only able to provide probabilistic answers to some problems slightly faster than a classical computer. They're a total scam.
>>17039467>>17039461can you sell me one that doesn't? I'll pay anything you ask>>17039393classical computers can't run shor's algorithm retard, no matter how big you make them
>>17039494>classical computers can't run shor's algorithm retard,you have no idea what you are talking about. A system of N qbits has a finite basis of size 2^N. As such it can be simulated to any precision given sufficiently enough resources on a classical computer. Leave and only come back when you learned linear algebra and basic QM you popsci lobotomite.
>>17039494>can you sell me one that doesn't?That will be your life savings, pseud-kun.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_bounded_automaton
>>17039499shor's algorithm is log N. a classical computer can't achieve that>hummm but it can achieve it in O^2000shut up retard. that's not shor's algorithm. that's something different that turing machines can run
>>17039471>write program that analyzes raw binary of executable, predicts whether that executable will crash>modify program to crash when .exe does not and terminate when .exe does>export program as new executable>run that .exe in the new programwhat happens?
>>17039501>However, Minsky notes:[9]> ...the magnitudes involved should lead one to suspect that theorems and arguments based chiefly on the mere finiteness [of] the state diagram may not carry a great deal of significance.>For example, a computer with a million two-state components would have at least 21,000,000 possible states:[9]> This is a 1 followed by about three hundred thousand zeroes ... Even if such a machine were to operate at the frequencies of cosmic rays, the aeons of galactic evolution would be as nothing compared to the time of a journey through such a cycle.the pseud "forgot" to include the relevant text right after his screenshot lmaoooo
>>17039504>.exelinux can do it though. your problem is that you're using microslop
>>17039507>write linux program that analyzes raw binary of program X, predicts whether program X will crash>modify program to crash when program X does not and terminate when program X does>export program as new linux program>analyze exported program code in itselfwhat happens?
>>17039502>shor's algorithm is log NThat is of no concern to what I said, which is:>every quantum computer can be simulated classically to arbitrary precisionwhich is factually true. It makes no claim about being equally efficient. Anything a QC does in finite time a classical computer does in finite time as well. I even said in the original post> QC can [...] only have better performance.You can't read and most likely are just an undergrad with severe dunning krueger
>>17039505>restricts to a tape of length 2idk why the mathematically inept are like this, making sweeping arguments and still acting smug when they are corrected by their betters.
>>17039554are you stupid or are you just pretending to be stupid? the claim is that Turing machines can run every algorithm possible, I showed you an algorithm quantum computers can run and classical computers can't, and you're talking about doing the same calculation with a different algorithm?yeah, I can factorize numbers by asking the guy who multiplied them what the answer is too, that doesn't make me a quantum computer
>>17039467>migger What does Drumpf have to do with this
>>17039591>the claim is that Turing machines can run every algorithm possiblethat's not the Church-Turing hypothesis anon, the hypothesis is that Turing machines can run an algorithm that computes the same thing as any algorithm
>>17039591>>17039601in this instance (Shor's algorithm), obviously a turing machine can do the same thing (factor a number). Runtime / computational complexity has nothing to do with it.
>>17039377>>Quantum computers can do calculations that classical computers can'tWrong, retard.Quantum computers are not doing calculations classical computers can't do.They are just doing it asymptotically faster than known algorithms but have no formal proof that we can't design classical algorithms that are just as efficient as quantum algorithms.
To add something others haven't yet: when people say "quantum computers can" they mean "quantum computers with N qbits and full entanglement". We don't have those. The number of particle pairs that require entangling is [math] \mathcal{O}(N^2) [/math], and every current architecture can at most manage [math] \mathcal{O}(N) [/math] of those. It is basically impossible to build an ideal quantum computer for N>4 in 3D (tetrahedral arrangement) for geometry reasons.
