Jump to content

D-Wave 2: "Kvantni računar spasava svet"

Recommended Posts

4108355465194dfe954c18923293773_orig.jpgPise B92.051613DWave-1368723859025.jpgEvo te vesti sa IEEE.org.
A new version of D-Wave's supposed quantum computers could help NASA hunt for alien worlds or enhance Google's mammoth search engine before the end of the year. The U.S. space agency and Internet search giant have joined a growing list of high-profile customers using the latest D-Wave machine despite lingering skepticism from quantum computing experts.
(NB: skepticizma je izgleda manje nego pre, New Scientist pise da je D-Wave 2 razbio u nekim testovima).dn23519-1_300.jpg
Now Catherine McGeoch of Amherst College, Massachusetts, a consultant to D-Wave, has put their computer through its paces and shown that it can beat regular machines. The D-Wave hardware is designed to solve a particular kind of optimisation problem: minimising the solution of a complicated equation by choosing the values of certain variables. It sounds esoteric, but the problem crops up in many practical applications, such as image recognition and machine learning.McGeoch and her colleague Cong Wang of Simon Fraser University, in Burnaby, ran the problem on a D-Wave Two computer, which has 439 qubits formed from superconducting niobium loops. They also tried to solve the problem using three leading algorithms running on a high-end desktop computer. The D-Wave machine turned out to be around 3600 times faster than the best conventional algorithm.
Link to comment
Ovaj ovde ide u sitna crevca sa skepticizmom.
When it comes down to it, that’s the reason why I care about this matter enough to have served as “Chief D-Wave Skeptic” from 2007 and 2011, and enough to resume my post today. As I’ve said many times, I really, genuinely hope that D-Wave succeeds at building a QC that achieves an unambiguous speedup! I even hope the academic QC community will contribute to D-Wave’s success, by doing careful independent studies like the USC group did, and by coming up with proposals like Lidar’s for how D-Wave could move forward. On the other hand, in the strange, unlikely event that D-Wave doesn’t succeed, I’d like people to know that many of us in the QC community were doing what academics are supposed to do, which is to be skeptical and not leave obvious questions unasked. I’d like them to know that some of us simply tried to understand and describe what we saw in front of us—changing our opinions repeatedly as new evidence came in, but disregarding “meta-arguments” like my physicist friends’ above. The reason I can joke about how easy it is to bribe me is that it’s actually kind of hard.
BTW. Lockheed Martin je platio 10 mil. baka za jednu od ovih kocki.Ima i ovaj
Critics maintain that D-Wave's (very expensive) computers don't exactly do the kind of quantum computing that physicists have been dreaming about. They say that D-Waves multi-million dollar machines are just clunkier, more expensive versions of conventional supercomputers. However, D-Wave's won a little bit of confidence last August when it published details of its quantum computing process in Nature.Despite its best efforts, D-Wave progress inevitably lives in the shadow of the skepticism from that 2007 demonstration. The company cried wolf, but nobody else saw the wolf. It's kind of a bummer really. A commercial quantum computer would not only be a major breakthrough in the world of computing, but also that of quantum physics.But hey, you can't totally blame D-Wave for propping up its claims, though. It's a for-profit company, after all. Labeling its computers as quantum computers is a geekier version of Vitamin Water calling its beverage nutritious. It's sort of true, but not really, and once D-Wave commercial model comes out, we'll see if the market buys into the claim.

I NY Times, nedavno. Edited by Indy
Link to comment

Da, ali poređenje ovako nečega i "običnog kompjutera" je po Vuku "mixing frogs and grandmothers". Naravno, kad god se napravi nešto novo i/ili drugačije, svako bi voleo da uporedi sa postojećim, ali treba biti svestan šta je tu šta. Arhitekture su prosto optimizovane za različite stvari - mada je i ovo suviše banalizovan komentar.Klasična konvencionalna arhitektura je prvo strašno opterećena kompatibilnošću unazad da bi pre svega postojeća masa softvera koji se trenutno vrti u svetu uopšte radila. I ta arhitektura mora da pozavršava najopštije moguće stvari (za razliku od ovih superkompjutera koji rade uglavnom matematičke simulacije). Kad se za specifične poslove pogleda razlika između modernih CPU-ova i GPU-ova i pogleda razlika između superkompjutera rađenih na konvencinalnoj opštoj arhitekturi i recimo onih građenih na Nvidia Tesla bazi, jasno je koje je već to pomake donelo u čisto matematičkim primenama.

Link to comment
  • 2 months later...
  • 5 months later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...