Re: Turing machines, quantum computers, and alephs
From: Bob Calvanese (bcalvanese_at_comcast.net)
Date: 03/20/05
- Next message: spinoza1111_at_yahoo.com: "Re: A unique number for every "person" - can it be done?"
- Previous message: Thad Smith: "Re: Turing machines, quantum computers, and alephs"
- In reply to: Gerry Quinn: "Turing machines, quantum computers, and alephs"
- Next in thread: Thomas Stegen: "Re: Turing machines, quantum computers, and alephs"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 19:54:25 -0500
I think all you should work for NASA...:)
-- Bob Calvanese "Gerry Quinn" <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote in message news:MPG.1ca61e3dc9924acb989f53@news.indigo.ie... > > This is something that came up on a related thread, but I think it is > interesting enough to have a thread to itself. > > The Church-Turing thesis, i.e. "Every 'function which would naturally be > regarded as computable' can be computed by a Turing machine." is > generally regarded as defining the limits of computation. And a Turing > machine consists of an infinite linear tape on which a read-write head, > capable of a finite number of states, moves step by step, reading one of > a finite number of symbols, writing one of them, changing to a > particular state based on what it read and it's current state, and > moving in one of two directions or stopping. It is an abstract machine > that is a good model for electronic computers. > > The 'qubit-based' quantum computer works with a set of entangled quantum > states. Without going into detail, an n-qubit quantum computer can > theoretically conduct 2^n computations in parallel. That's a lot of > calculations - for a 300-qubit machine it exceeds the number of atoms in > the observable universe. > > Conventional wisdom is that the Turing machine remains an appropriate > model for the abstract limit of what a quantum computer is capable of. > The reasoning is that, no matter how many computations it can do, it is > still a finite number, and an ordinary machine could do that many if it > took enough time. Since we're talking about abstract machines, we don't > care about physical limits such as the size of the universe. > > However, when we talk about abstract machines with infinite tapes, we > need to think about what we mean by 'infinity'. For the Turing machine > it is straightforward enough - we can place the positions on the tape in > one-to-one correspondence with the natural numbers. Call this infinity > Aleph-0. Since the tape head performs any number of sequential > operations, the number (if I may use the term) of operations the Turing > machine can perform is Aleph-0. > > For the machine corresponding to the abstract quantum computer, we have > Aleph-0 qubits. But the number of calculations it can do in parallel is > 2^(Aleph-0), or Aleph-1. > > Conclusion: the Turing machine is not after all a valid abstract model > for the capabilities of a qubit-based quantum computer. > > The two functions f(x)=x and f(x)=2^x both reach any finite value of > f(x). But they don't rise towards the same infinity. > > Comments? > > - Gerry Quinn > > > > > > >
- Next message: spinoza1111_at_yahoo.com: "Re: A unique number for every "person" - can it be done?"
- Previous message: Thad Smith: "Re: Turing machines, quantum computers, and alephs"
- In reply to: Gerry Quinn: "Turing machines, quantum computers, and alephs"
- Next in thread: Thomas Stegen: "Re: Turing machines, quantum computers, and alephs"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|