!Rant

I have not slept in 28 hours.

I discovered Quantum computing, pubo and simulators.

I FEEL it can solve my business problem, but it is fucking time consuming to write this code. (In a good way).

I do not need sleep at this point, I need answers!

Anyone with good links to either pubo examples or a useful quantum algorithm, I’ll take it ! (not the random number… I have already run that on a real QPU 9Still no idea how much that run cost in $)!)

Just for people who would like to explore : A nice starting point is there :

https://github.com/microsoft/...

Just to add. Every sample in QDK is in python. So (If someone already did this, please link!!!) So I move the whole QDK to c#.

Here is example of work in progress. Comments are welcome.

Edit : Top is Python, bot is c# with some helpers I added

*grin* "or a useful quantum algorithm" :P I'm not entirely sure there are many of those lol

@MadMadMadMrMim
Well, random is pretty grat. Actually REAL random.

But hey with max of 11 Qubits, it's kind of "mehhh".

I still wonder how much that execution cost me. Probably response in a week or two.

But I really really reaslly wanted to fire a laser on an ion with my code.

@NoToJavaScript there is no real random.
however if you have a working example of something other than a pseudorandom generator that cannot be manipulated by naturally reoccurring parameters I would love to see it.

I'm sorry I'll rephrase a bit.

Most references to quantum theory beggar the chicken or the egg argument.

Lasers are polarized light. I'm not sure they were created using quantum theory, quantum theory just apparently offers an additional explanation apparently about some aspect of the physics.

for example I saw a webpage that claimed that computers were BASED on quantum theory.

er no computers evolved from more blunt machines and the logic was added into electrical engineering.

@MadMadMadMrMim

Hmm I think you did not get the memo.

It’s not a theory anymore.

The true Qubits do exist on real hardware. And you Can access real quantum computer right now.

It is the “real” random. The process is pretty “simple”. You put a Qubit at |0> state (Which we can do) than apply H gate to it. It forces qubit in a super position. The perfect 50/50 chance (Or 1/sqrt(2)|0> + 1/sqrt(2)|1>.

It is a real physical phenomenon.

If you still have doubts, try searching data teleportation.

Edit : For the code part, in Q# : https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/...

You can execute it on real hardware (money involved tho)

@NoToJavascript

well thats exactly it.
you said money involved though quantum computers are specific.
how is this q# algorithm working on standard hardware where random numbers always have to be seeded since standard computing is pretty cut and dry and has to be.

honestly I can't see how any form of computing couldnt be powered by anything that was NOT definite.

that is an invitation to explain btw.

@NoToJavaScript that being said, one might ask 'well why does it matter'

firstly there is the seeming endless perceptual lack of randomness or novelty we are all experiencing as the result of some nightmare garbage asshat creating this rather systematic net of human and animal behavior we're all trapped in at the moment which led to us having this same conversation again.

lets say we're going to base our behaviors off randomly generated numbers to ensure the stimuli we experience is differing, if its based off seed values that are predictable or COULD be predictable and are being actively tampered with by say hardware and software manufacturers we have some problems.

personally the random number repeats ive seen, seem almost to be getting fed by hijacked stl more than anything else, based off initial samples that a person witnessed during a real day of their life which many seem not to have anymore.

@NoToJavaScript as to that which you exclaimed what are you talking about to previoiusly, we are now in a scenario where one has to question what random means in reality since there dont seem to be many random events and also perception at the precision we are capable of, even with help, is very limited as to not allow us to be effected greatly by small lapses in time that a machine would notice either. then also there is propagation across something a decision is being made for for example where

0.95555599999999 * 5 is close enough to 0.9555559999999999999 as to result in the same categorical value being chosen. etc etc

@NoToJavaScript some days i look at my fellow man who during my lifetime first contributed to this numerical slavery willfully to the point of changing everything perceivably to be.. pointless, and realize that complete and total systematic attrition is the only way of reintroducing randomness and freedom into the world.

@MadMadMadMrMim Yeah well, Q# allows to start NOW and hardware will come.

IonQ already teasing (They say "avalible" but it's not ) 32 Qubits QPU. And wait a year or two it will be 256+Qubits and THERE you can have fun. But you can simulate that fun (not 256) today

Edit : Link https://ionq.com/posts/...

see now they're hitting on an idea i had for several forms of tech including USABLE AR which seems to get abandoned over and over because of the virtual vs real world overlay problem.

make the apps ahead of time in a simulator, do the coding, with you know the end results of the inputs and the like just being assumed, kind of like sci fi really, 'this big piece is missing !' ,,, 'well what if it wasn't ?'

but then that would require an economic system that is not 99% cheating, fraud, money laundering, prostitution and crap ideas that get scrapped to take advantage of tax evasion scams.

@MadMadMadMrMim

Well, it seems you are just angry and need to vent.

Implement a simple pubo for your industry, get good results on it and then we can discuss.

But that’s fine, this place is to vent. God knows I do it regularly (fu JetBrains again btw, AGAIN, need to COMPLETELY uninstall their software to just… lunch a python script… that’s how BAD they are)

@NoToJavaScript
today's indicator of time influx :

https://youtu.be/tZyUxqBvMBE

I should vent into all the willing young women nearby until the remaining ten pounds of pudge falls off me if they'd just make that desirable by being well, human lol

@MadMadMadMrMim lasers are intimately tied to quantum physics. Stimulated emission (the "SE" in LASER - yes it's an acronym) is a quantum effect. They aren't just polarized light - you can get that quite easily through polarizing sunglasses, but that doesn't give you a laser.

Quantum physics matters quite a bit for regular computers. At the sub-10nm scales modern chip fabrication works with, quantum effects are very noticeable indeed. Some of the most hardcore applied physics goes into chip fabrication, most of which is governed by quantum physics.

The difference between a quantum computer and a "regular" one is in the logic that it implements. Quantum logic is fundamentally different from classical Boolean logic.

Real random does exist - many hardware RNGs use a physical source of randomness, like electrical or temperature fluctuations. Randomness is fundamentally baked into quantum physics - it's not just that some systems are random, every quantum system has a bunch of states with a given probability of being in that state on measurement. That's just how it is, fundamentally. As "true" random as can be. In face, it's the classical everyday determinism that's "fake", only because quantum effects average out at the scales of eg. a human.

@NoToJavaScript tried the Deutsch-Jozsa algorithm or Grover's algorithm? Fairly basic beginner quantum algorithms, though I used a simulator, never ran it on real qubits.

@RememberMe Yep I did !

But only on simulator for these two ;p

Finally, stepping a bit back from actual Q# and hardware and looking to apply some solvers this week/month to the current project. I already managed a simple case of a 5x5 matrix, yeaaah. seem s simple, but not too "simple". But once you do it your self, for your own problem it becames sooo clear. Literally, I don't care about anything else now in programming but finding optimization for cost functions. It's like (for me) mind blown. We can do THAT with SO simple coe (Ok some maths before) ? Just that I think will be my path. And maybe full quantum, but not for now

@RememberMe basing random numbers off environmental stimuli is not random.

random should exist outside the need for seeding or sampling of environmental aspects liek video or temperature because all of that is less and less random and in my opinion you're kind of preaching the same thing..

I'd like a reference to a document that indicates nano fabrication of which we have pretty much reached the limit of and how it requires the concepts of quantum physics to work.

governed by because it matches up is not the same as governed by its explaining after the fact not saying that the original creation was dependent on it.

thats my point.

and no if all things in the universe are as a result of a series of interacting forces there is no true random and anything we can create is still pseudo and still subject to tampering.

yeah i remember you zimmerman commented on your avatar name

its one their catch phrases meaning the point you're arguing is just IT trying to sound clever.

apparently there wasnt much a payout.

@NoToJavaScript quantum computing is an awesome rabbit hole to go down, I'd recommend the classic textbook by Nielsen and Chuang. Might need additional stuff to be helpful.

@MadMadMadMrMim probability and randomness are inherent features of quantum physics. There is no deterministic state or actions. You *can't* predict individual quantum outcomes, only their expectations. I suggest you read up on basically any famous quantum experiment (Young's double slit, Aspect's entanglement etc.).

If you want a reference on quantum physics being used for nanofabrication, look up literally any book on solid state physics. I liked the one by Ashcroft. Besides, literally on the first google search I found stuff like this http://dunham.ece.uw.edu/ee531/ which mentions quantum physics in the context of VLSI quite liberally. When you care about nanometer scales, you need quantum physics. No way around it.

I'd also suggest Brian Greene's excellent book "Fabric of the Cosmos" for a very digestible introduction to the intuition behind quantum physics (modern physics, really) and its importance.

@RememberMe the link leads a course syllabus :P

@MadMadMadMrMim a course on VLSI. With quantum physics in it literally from the first module. What more do you want?

@RememberMe access to the text :P

@RememberMe Oh ! Nice !

thank you. But it will be tomorrow, sleep is coming down hard 9With some thc to absorb the impossible and vast univers where we are just tiny little particules, but I degress. thanks again !

@MadMadMadMrMim all the handouts and homework seem to be freely downloadable. Also, this is a fairly entry level course (as in, real nanofabs are way hairier).

@NoToJavaScript
I really wonder, what that business problem is when you think, a quantum computer would be a cost-effective way to solve it...

@MadMadMadMrMim
As a believer of universal determinism, you are probably interested in real non-pseudo randomness:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

@Oktokolo it’s a bit more than belief reinforced by artificial factors which make sameness more painfully visible

@Oktokolo I would direct you to the term statistical randomness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Mentioned in that same article

The problem as it is with the erasure of previous scenarios and evidence of existence without picking an ideal matchup of events as would be deserved by some in time the markers that would prevent deterministic effects from manifesting get forgotten and are reinforced by those who willfully reinforce cyclic presentation of the same environmental stimuli. Truthfully I’ve thought of what you’re suggesting in the form of crcuit closure via falling water droplets carrying electrolytes which is less fancy than subatomic processes issue is thus. At a high enough precision as to be noticeably different do we notice so is more random going to contribute much to a change of flow ? As we are even now exchanging the same information just about because the arguments on this side are solid

@Oktokolo I think (At least im LoB) is the biggest candidate

https://qubovert.readthedocs.io/en/...

I just did the math and average problem our customers are facing is somewhere between 500 variables. which can already be solved with current software.

But to REALLY solve the "big" problems it's about 3.000.000.000 variables. (IF we can solve that, even in multiple days of running algo, the benefit for our clients will be so insane, we can multiply our prices by 100 easy)

@NoToJavaScript
500 is probably too much variables for current quantum computers.

@Oktokolo yep.

But similations are just fine for now!

Ina couple of years probably.

And i'm working on "spliting" problem in smaller problems

@NoToJavaScript why do I feel like your business problem is a SAT/SMT/max-SAT problem...