Klik op een omslag om naar Google Boeken te gaan.
Bezig met laden... Quantum Computing since Democritusdoor Scott Aaronson
Geen Bezig met laden...
Meld je aan bij LibraryThing om erachter te komen of je dit boek goed zult vinden. Op dit moment geen Discussie gesprekken over dit boek. Quantum computers work with qubits, which can have a value of 0, 1 or both! Thus two qubits can represent four states simultaneously (00, 01, 10, and 11). Firstly the entangled qubits cannot be in a neither state - what state is that, exactly?! Secondly, I don’t like people saying that a qubit can have a value of 1, or 0, or both - you record the qubit state as 1 or 0 when measured (you never record a state of both), before that, it can be in a superposition of the states 1 and 0, but that’s not the same as saying it is in both states, all you can say is it’s in a superposition of those states and predict what’s the probability you will measure each of them. Having said that, the last sentence correctly quotes the four possible measurable states: two entangled qubits will be in one of four states (as listed) when measured - before that, all we can say is that the entangled qubits are in a superposition of all those four states, and predict the probability any particular one of them will be measured. Faster. That's it. Not magic. Computing and encryption is a race against the ability to crack it or out-compute it. Quantum theory is fake news anyway- the act of you reading (observing) this comment has changed it, oh and it's both a comment and a photo of ABBA at the same time. It may also just vanish into nothingness, or pop into existence from nothing in another part of the universe. Maybe it did? It's possible. Improbable, but you'll never know. Why not use the current generation of quantum computers to calculate the probability that next generation's quantum decryption will be successfully countered by quantum encryption? Primarily about computational complexity theory (P =? NP, etc); secondarily about quantum mechanics viewed as a generalized form of probability calculus and as a strengthener of computation; and tertiarily about other matters surprisingly related to computational complexity, such as the consciousness-related ideas of Penrose, the Doomsday Argument, free will, closed timelike curves, and the accelerating expansion of the universe. While it's all of considerable interest and written in a very jaunty style, there's no hiding the fact that most of it is advanced college-level in difficulty. E.g., a reader who had no interest in conjectures such as "Bounded-error Quantum Polynomial-time (BQP) is the most inclusive complexity class of efficiently computable problems" would want to skip large portions of the book. geen besprekingen | voeg een bespreking toe
Erelijsten
Written by noted quantum computing theorist Scott Aaronson, this book takes readers on a tour through some of the deepest ideas of maths, computer science and physics. Full of insights, arguments and philosophical perspectives, the book covers an amazing array of topics. Beginning in antiquity with Democritus, it progresses through logic and set theory, computability and complexity theory, quantum computing, cryptography, the information content of quantum states and the interpretation of quantum mechanics. There are also extended discussions about time travel, Newcomb's Paradox, the anthropic principle and the views of Roger Penrose. Aaronson's informal style makes this fascinating book accessible to readers with scientific backgrounds, as well as students and researchers working in physics, computer science, mathematics and philosophy. Geen bibliotheekbeschrijvingen gevonden. |
Actuele discussiesGeen
Google Books — Bezig met laden... GenresDewey Decimale Classificatie (DDC)621.39Technology Engineering and allied operations Applied physics Electrical, magnetic, optical, communications, computer engineering; electronics, lighting Computer engineeringLC-classificatieWaarderingGemiddelde:
Ben jij dit?Word een LibraryThing Auteur. |
I can't say I enjoyed it, and I can't say I'd recommend it to anyone, but it definitely improved my understanding of computation. There are probably better and faster ways of doing that, but this is what I had to work with. ( )