Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 11th Jan 2017 23:59 UTC
Hardware, Embedded Systems

That's where the company's new software tool Qbsolv comes in. Qbsolv is designed to help developers program D-Wave machines without needing a background in quantum physics. A few of D-Wave's partners are already using the tool, but today the company released Qbsolv as open source, meaning anyone will be able to freely share and modify the software.

"Not everyone in the computer science community realizes the potential impact of quantum computing," says Fred Glover, a mathematician at the University of Colorado, Boulder who has been working with Qbsolv. "Qbsolv offers a tool that can make this impact graphically visible, by getting researchers and practitioners involved in charting the future directions of quantum computing developments."

Order by: Score:
Link misspelled href
by number9 on Thu 12th Jan 2017 00:31 UTC
number9
Member since:
2005-10-25

It should be: https://www.wired.com/2017/01/d-wave-turns-open-source-democratize-q...

Do you do the html by hand? Wow.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Link misspelled href
by FlyingJester on Thu 12th Jan 2017 00:44 UTC in reply to "Link misspelled href"
FlyingJester Member since:
2016-05-11

Given how almost all CMS systems are steaming bags of poop, or so inadequate you will still need to do significant amounts of HTML by hand, no reason not to.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Link misspelled href
by ssokolow on Thu 12th Jan 2017 01:06 UTC in reply to "RE: Link misspelled href"
ssokolow Member since:
2010-01-21

Given how almost all CMS systems are steaming bags of poop, or so inadequate you will still need to do significant amounts of HTML by hand, no reason not to.


Still a surprise given that, if you're homegrowing your own CMS as I remember to be the case with OSNews, you already understand the codebase well enough to at least slap something like a Markdown parser onto the input stage to make that kind of issue more difficult to overlook.

(Of course, this is OSNews, which has had a problem with generating broken markup related to nested quoting for as long as I can remember.)

I'm actually in the middle of renovating my cruftiest old hobby codebase still in active use because, while it may be a static templater that's been superceded by Jekyll in every other way, it has one component I'd like to retain: Glue code to perform offline validation of all CSS, HTML, and XML (eg. RSS) that it generates, plus an incomplete (local only, no fragment references) but also offline checker for broken links.

Reply Score: 2

I tried it
by kwan_e on Thu 12th Jan 2017 03:05 UTC
kwan_e
Member since:
2007-02-18

I tried it, but the answers I keep getting from it are neither here nor there.

Reply Score: 10

Comment by Radio
by Radio on Thu 12th Jan 2017 07:15 UTC
Radio
Member since:
2009-06-20

D-WAVE does not have a quantum computer:
http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1400

F*ck Wired and its clickbaity infomercials.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by Radio
by kokara4a on Thu 12th Jan 2017 08:08 UTC in reply to "Comment by Radio"
kokara4a Member since:
2005-09-16

If it's not Turing complete then it's not a computer. Period. From what I could find on the Internet it's not Turing complete. I leave the conclusion as an exercise for the reader.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Radio
by feamatar on Thu 12th Jan 2017 09:36 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Radio"
feamatar Member since:
2014-02-25

so analogue computers are not computers... okkkkk....

Have D-Wave ever claimed that their solution is universal?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Radio
by dylansmrjones on Thu 12th Jan 2017 10:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Radio"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

That's nonsense. A computer does not have to be Turing complete. It only needs to be capable of some sort of computing.

Like the other poster noted, analogue computers are not Turing complete and several early digital computers were also not Turing complete. But they were and are still computers.

A rolodex is also a computer, and a nice one at that.

Edited 2017-01-12 10:24 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by Radio
by Vanders on Thu 12th Jan 2017 10:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Radio"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

If it's not Turing complete then it's not a computer. Period.

Sure it can be. It just isn't a Universal Turing Machine. That's not the same thing.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Comment by Radio
by Megol on Thu 12th Jan 2017 12:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Radio"
Megol Member since:
2011-04-11

"If it's not Turing complete then it's not a computer. Period.

Sure it can be. It just isn't a Universal Turing Machine. That's not the same thing.
"

No real computer can reach the computational power of the Turing machine and there will never be a universal computer. Physics limits real things while the Turing machine is a theoretical construct.

The idea that computer means Turing complete (able to simulate a single-tape Turing machine given infinite time and infinite storage) is wrong, the concept of computers existed long before Turing was born.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by Radio
by kokara4a on Thu 12th Jan 2017 14:19 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Radio"
kokara4a Member since:
2005-09-16

I'll reply to myself to address several comments at once. In Computer Science, running a Turing Machine is what it means to compute. That's how you define the term computation. The universality has nothing to do with this. Any program for a Universal TM can be converted to a fixed TM. It's the principle underlying it that matters.

Of course, one of the features of Turing Machines is the infinite tape. But this is only to address the size of the problem. For any given size of the problem to solve, the amount of tape used must be bounded. If a problem of specific size requires infinite amount of tape it will not terminate and is therefore not computable.

Now, there are some formal systems which are strictly less powerful than a Turing Machine*. Take Finite State Automata for example. And here is the rub - regardless of how big FSA you are allowed to build, some problems are not solvable with it, whereas they are solvable by a TM.

That was the essence of my comment. If it's not Turing complete in its operating principle, then it's not a computer. Yes, it can perform some computations but not all possible computations. Therefore it's not a computer but a Special Purpose Device.

* The interesting fact is, that if some formal system is at least as powerful as a TM then it's equivalent to a TM. That goes for real (maybe I should say theoretical) quantum computers as well - they can compute some things faster but can not solve more problems in principle.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by Radio
by feamatar on Thu 12th Jan 2017 15:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Radio"
feamatar Member since:
2014-02-25

That's not true. Turing machines can compute all computable functions, but a function is computable if it is computable by a machine.

Edit: see Church-Turing thesis

Edited 2017-01-12 15:04 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Radio
by kokara4a on Thu 12th Jan 2017 15:25 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Radio"
kokara4a Member since:
2005-09-16

Have it your way. But then any physical process is computation of some sort. I don't think this is a very useful definition. To me a computer is synonymous with Turing-complete. Maybe because I'm a programmer. When I hear "computer", I know what I can do with it at least in principle. Now you say, that if I hear "computer" I don't know anything about it. It's some thing that does something. Got it! Makes it hell of a lot easier to explain to somebody ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by Radio
by feamatar on Thu 12th Jan 2017 17:19 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Radio"
feamatar Member since:
2014-02-25

Well, according to Wikipedia:

"
Pancomputationalism or the computational universe theory[edit]
Pancomputationalism (also known as pan-computationalism, naturalist computationalism) is a view that the universe is a computational machine, or rather a network of computational processes which, following fundamental physical laws, computes (dynamically develops) its own next state from the current one.[18]
"

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by Radio
by Veto on Thu 12th Jan 2017 17:21 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Radio"
Veto Member since:
2010-11-13

To me a computer is synonymous with Turing-complete. Maybe because I'm a programmer.


That might be. However that limits your ability to communicate with the rest of us, which have a broader definition of "computers". Turing machine is a precise term for a special kind of computer, so why conflate the two terms?

... Originally a "computer" was actually a person. I don't think humans are Turing complete :-)

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by Radio
by feamatar on Thu 12th Jan 2017 17:35 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Radio"
feamatar Member since:
2014-02-25

Why? What would be the limitation of humans?

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Comment by Radio
by Alfman on Thu 12th Jan 2017 18:51 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Radio"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

kokara4a,

To me a computer is synonymous with Turing-complete. Maybe because I'm a programmer.


Veto,
... Originally a "computer" was actually a person. I don't think humans are Turing complete :-)


feamatar,
Why? What would be the limitation of humans?




I think it's very common to conflate these terms when using them normally - I know I do. I don't ordinarily care about being so pedantic, but what an interesting question! I've always understood "turning machine" as a theoretical machine that explicitly has infinite capacity. It can only ever be approximated with a computer, since infinite computers cannot physically exist. However if we ignore the infinite state of a turning machine, or if we assume our computers had infinite state, then they would be equivalent to turing machines.

Maybe not everyone agrees with this, but given what I've said above, I would argue that humans are not turing machines with infinite capacity. However they can (or could theoretically) do everything a computer could because a computer is following simple steps. Given enough time and paper, everything a computer does can be computed by a humans pretending to be a CPU, albeit very inefficiently!

A related question is the inverse: Is there anything a human can mentally think up that a computer fundamentally cannot compute? A lot of people want to believe that sentient life is "special", but I'm not sure how that could ever be proven.

Edited 2017-01-12 18:55 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by Radio
by Megol on Fri 13th Jan 2017 17:46 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Radio"
Megol Member since:
2011-04-11

"To me a computer is synonymous with Turing-complete. Maybe because I'm a programmer.


That might be. However that limits your ability to communicate with the rest of us, which have a broader definition of "computers". Turing machine is a precise term for a special kind of computer, so why conflate the two terms?

... Originally a "computer" was actually a person. I don't think humans are Turing complete :-)
"

Given infinite time and storage space a human would be.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by Radio
by Megol on Fri 13th Jan 2017 18:12 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Radio"
Megol Member since:
2011-04-11

Have it your way. But then any physical process is computation of some sort. I don't think this is a very useful definition. To me a computer is synonymous with Turing-complete. Maybe because I'm a programmer. When I hear "computer", I know what I can do with it at least in principle. Now you say, that if I hear "computer" I don't know anything about it. It's some thing that does something. Got it! Makes it hell of a lot easier to explain to somebody ;)


So you are using a short-hand version, that's not uncommon. You also probably assume that the computer mentioned is digital, is a stored-program Von Neumann design and use 8 bit bytes. There have been electric computers that weren't/didn't. People that use the terms mini and micro-computers today probably mean smaller than normal computers and not the old definitions where a micro-computer was based on a micro-processor (or more ICs) and a minicomputer was anything smaller than a mainframe computer...

Normal computers aren't Turing machines, they are finite state machines which can compute a subset of programs a Turing machine can solve (both given infinite time).

Reply Score: 2