If you can not implement this calculation, by using a loop structure, because it does not support superposition than you have to implement the subtraction logic at least 3 times in hardware.

If you want to perform many divisions you can imagine that you needs lots of hardware and this approach becomes complete unpractical. specific if the numbers become larger.

Nicolaas Vroom See https://www.nicvroom.be/shor.htm for more details.

Floating Point Logic requires a mantissa and an exponent. See http://research.microsoft.com/~hollasch/cgindex/coding/ieeefloat.html

Nicolaas Vroom See https://www.nicvroom.be/shor.htm for more details.

"Nicolaas Vroom" wrote in message news:NIhjb.79968$ZX1.4237340@phobos.telenet-ops.be...

>	Question: Is it possible to use Floating Point Logic in a QC using the advantages of Quantum Computers and or Quantum mechanics i.e. superposition and entanglement. I have great doubts. To implement operations like ADD SUB MUL and DIV is very complex.

Don't you think the very existence of quantum computers might offset it, as the concept of creating and using quantum bits seems to me to be much more complex than ADD SUB MUL or DIV operations..

If they can implement the use of quantum mechanics in a computer, then I wouldn't put it beyond the abilities of those same people to allow the thing to perform operations much more complex than what you describe.

Thanks

"MorituriMax" schreef in bericht news:y0ijb.54168$7_1.44675@twister.austin.rr.com...

>	"Nicolaas Vroom" wrote in message news:NIhjb.79968$ZX1.4237340@phobos.telenet-ops.be...

> >	Question: Is it possible to use Floating Point Logic in a QC using the advantages of Quantum Computers and or Quantum mechanics i.e. superposition and entanglement. I have great doubts. To implement operations like ADD SUB MUL and DIV

May be I should have added: "With floating point arithmatic" to make my point more clearly.

> >	is very complex.

>	Don't you think the very existence of quantum computers might offset it, as the concept of creating and using quantum bits seems to me to be much more complex than ADD SUB MUL or DIV operations..

The concept of using quantum bits if you stick to integer arithmatic with unitary logic is relative simple.
If you want to implement floating point arithmatic this becomes much more complex.

The reason why my question is important becomes clear if you want to calculate the following:

Now suppose there is no floating point arithmatic available but only integer arithmatic.
The only way to calculate 424 * 64 / 256 is first to calculate 424 * 64 = 27136 and then 27136 / 256 = 106.

Now suppose you want to calculate 424 * 64 * 64 / (256 * 256)

My point is that the intermediate results become gargantuan which is a nuisance and a serious drawback.

>	If they can implement the use of quantum mechanics in a computer, then I wouldn't put it beyond the abilities of those same people to allow the thing to perform operations much more complex than what you describe.

I agree

>

Thanks

Nicolaas Vroom

For some reading see: http://www.aps.org/apsnews/0698/069808.html http://www.cs.caltech.edu/~westside/quantum-intro.html

One question is: what is the definition of parallel.
Does that mean that those calculations are performed at the same time ?

A standard single processor DC does not have the capability to perform calculations in parallel.
Only a multi processor DC has the capability to perform calculations in parallel. An analog computer (AC) has the capability to perform computations in parallel. The reason is because an AC is built with all the necessary hardware (Integrators, summers, multipliers) to solve all the differential equations at once i.e. in parallel.

In order for an QC to operate in parallel is it enough that the QC is built with unitary logic ?

In many QC applications starting point is an input register of for example 3 QUbits. Next there is an Hadamard operation Next there is a matrix of unitary logic. The final result is stored in an output register of for example 3 QUbits.

If the Hadamard operation works on 3 QUbits than the Hadamard operation represents 8 entangled states ( 000, 001, 010, 011, 100, 101,110 and 111)
IMO it is wrong to claim that those 8 states exists in parallel (Or is this wrong ?)

If this is true than it is only correct to say that the whole matrix of unitary logic is perfomed in parallel but not the 8 possible caculations based on the 8 entangled states ? Is that correct ?

Still there is an additional CONSTRAINT. Each unitary logic operation will take some time that means the output state will only be correct based on an input state after a certain delay time. The total delay time is a function of the maximum number of unitary operations inbetween input and output. Is that correct ?

Nicolaas Vroom

"Nicolaas Vroom" schreef in bericht wrote news:uexgb.63047$dW3.2885681@phobos.telenet-ops.be...

>	Question: Is it possible to use loops in a Quantum Computer using the advantages of Quantum Computers and or Quantum mechanics i.e. superposition and entanglement.

Along the same line is it possible to use unitary logic based on two entangled states.
A Hadamard operation based on 3 Qubits results in 8 entangled states. i.e 000, 001, 010,011,100,101,110 and 111

For example is it possible to add those 8 entangled states. The result should be 28 i.e. 5 Qubits.

If it is possible than how do you test (measure ?) it ?

If it is not possible to use unitary logic based on two (or more ?) entangled states (error free ?) than FFT IMO becomes very difficult to realize.

>	Nicolaas Vroom See https://www.nicvroom.be/shor.htm for more details.

Back to my home page Contents of This Document