tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17555522.post1756295634450761136..comments2008-03-13T15:08:36.484-07:00bwhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07541279438184352860noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17555522.post-79064844829169059942008-03-13T15:08:00.000-07:002008-03-13T15:08:00.000-07:00Quantum computers can handle different kinds of algorithms. so for certain kinds of problems quantum computers would be superior to a molecular classical computer. A molecular classical computer like this would be could be a million times faster than the best petaflop machines that we have now. Estimates for the human brain are 100 teraflop to 20 petaflops.<BR/><BR/>http://vadim.oversigma.com/MAS862/Project.html<BR/><BR/>A large quantum computer with millions of qubits or more would be able to process certain problems faster.<BR/>If the qubits could allow say a problem to be solved as the square root of n * n where is the qubits versus the best classical algorithm which might be some exponential function or X**3 or something. then you could see when X**0.333 (where X is the flops of the molecular computer, change the functions based on the kind of problem) is less than n qubits. <BR/><BR/>This is the same answer that I provided for you at the CRN site just now. <BR/>Quantum algorithm versus classical need to be compared.<BR/><BR/>also some of the dwave systems might only be quantum annealing which might cap out million to a billion times faster than classical. So enough brute force from a molecular computer could whittle down where it would make sense to use a quantum computer. There is also the issue of making the molecular computer easy to program and use. Computing is a tough space because tweaking how we work with CMOS technology could get us to exaflop speeds. Plus the possibility of all optical computers could also be easier than molecular computers. However, the molecular computer would stand out with form factors that the other computers could not match. Putting a lot of really tiny computing and control where you need it like in nanobots.bwhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07541279438184352860noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17555522.post-13337277597144999782008-03-13T13:10:00.000-07:002008-03-13T13:10:00.000-07:00Hello Brian,<BR/><BR/>I was wondering how this would compare to the speed increases of a quantum computer. Would it be equal to QC's speed without the problem of decoherence and only having certain algorithems that are faster than a normal computer?<BR/><BR/>Thanks,<BR/>John AkersAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17555522.post-37132804336843348982008-03-12T15:07:00.000-07:002008-03-12T15:07:00.000-07:00Got to love competition. They always belittle even the greatest breakthroughs. To me this seems like a HUGE step in the right direction. I mean if we have the computational power of the brain in only a few years... I don't see the singularity being that far away. Very near indeed.Sigmanoreply@blogger.com