Re: A unique number for every "person" - can it be done?

From: Gerry Quinn (gerryq_at_DELETETHISindigo.ie)
Date: 03/18/05 

Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 12:41:30 -0000

In article <1111124071.796451.124850@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
spinoza1111@yahoo.com says...
> Gerry, all due respect, but you really should have consulted the
> Wikipedia article on this subject at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computing. Here is the key
> paragraph:
>
> "Although quantum computers are sometimes faster than classical
> computers, ones of the types described above can't solve any problems
> that classical computers can't solve, given enough time and memory. A
> Turing machine can simulate these quantum computers, so such a quantum
> computer could never solve an undecidable problem like the halting
> problem. The existence of "standard" quantum computers does not
> disprove the Church-Turing thesis."
>
> The article does mention "hypercomputation" as the search for ways
> around Church/Turing but "hypercomputation" appears to me, given my
> layperson's standing in these matters, as the oldest computing hoax in
> the book: the illusion that we can trade Speed to get Truth.

Hmm, so I should not only have consulted it, but agreed and disagreed
with the correct bits of it?

> Consel for the plaintiff concludes that you pissed me off when you
> claimed that there exists a species of *flaneur* who writes on science
> while being ignorant, and linked to an article which committs mild
> fraud, by implying (yet carefully qualifying the implication) that
> quantum computers refute Turing.

The article did not even mention Turing! It pointed out the differences
and similarities of the capabilities of the 'traditional' computer and
the quantum computer in quite a straightforward manner. It seems to me
that you noticed that Turing-Church doesn't do a very good job of
modelling the differences they described, and thus rejected the article
because it challenged your preconceptions about the issue.

- Gerry Quinn

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A unique number for every "person" - can it be done?
    ... > Gerry, all due respect, but you really should have consulted the ... > computers, ones of the types described above can't solve any problems ... > Turing machine can simulate these quantum computers, ... > quantum computers refute Turing. ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: A unique number for every "person" - can it be done?
    ... > Gerry, all due respect, but you really should have consulted the ... > computers, ones of the types described above can't solve any problems ... > Turing machine can simulate these quantum computers, ... > quantum computers refute Turing. ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: Quantum computable functions
    ... "Computational complexity of uniform quantum circuit families and quantum Turing machines" ... his universal QTM needs exponential slowdown for simulating QTMs. ... "Deutsch showed that quantum computers can't compute anything going beyond ordinary Turing computable functions -- but they can compute ...
    (comp.theory)
  • Re: A unique number for every "person" - can it be done?
    ... > tend to tune out of prose that fails to even address Turing when it ... computers and electronic computers. ... > renarrated as being for all practical purposes. ... beginners on the theory and practice of quantum computing. ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: A unique number for every "person" - can it be done?
    ... > tend to tune out of prose that fails to even address Turing when it ... computers and electronic computers. ... > renarrated as being for all practical purposes. ... beginners on the theory and practice of quantum computing. ...
    (sci.math)