• A_A@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I understand your statement here and I agree with it. Yet I guess both you and the other user here (@cyd@lemmy.world) are missing what I am trying to describe. Maybe my explanation is not accurate and my understanding is not well developed.

    Let me illustrate with an example : we can study new planes models :
    a)- in a wind tunnel equipped with instrumentation (camera, smoke trail and so on), or
    b)- with numerical simulations on a computer.

    One method (a) is very specific to a very precise problem, it cannot be (easily) adapted to calculate various random problems. The other (b) is meant to be a versatile programmable computer and so can switch to a completely different problem in one microsecond.

    For what I understand, so-called quantum computers (of today) are more like option (a).

    Does this makes sense to you ?

    • cyd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think what you’re missing is that quantum computers aim to tackle computational problems that are classically intractable. In other words, option (b) does not exist, or takes the on the order of the age of the universe to run. Then, for all the numerous practical disadvantages of using a quantum system to perform the calculation, it would be the only game in town.