Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday August 25 2017, @02:11AM   Printer-friendly
from the inconsistent-consistencies-!=-consistent-inconsistencies dept.

Submitted via IRC for Bytram

"WLIHE QTAUUNM CMPIOTUNG IS PEISOD FOR SGIFANCIIT GWORTH AND AEVNADCMNET, THE EGRENEMT IDSRTUNY IS CRRULNETY FARENETMGD AND LCAKS A CMOMON CMUIATCHIMNOS FARWEORMK" -IEEE

One person’s trapped ion is another’s electrostatically defined quantum dot. I'm talking about qubits, by the way—the quantum-computing equivalent of the bits in regular computers. But if you don't quite follow, don't worry: you're far from being alone.

"Confusions exist on what quantum computing or a quantum computer means," says Hidetoshi Nishimori, a professor at the Tokyo Institute of Technology who specializes in quantum computing.

[...] The snappily titled IEEE P7130 Standard for Quantum Computing Definitions Project will corral experts and define the most important terms in the field so that everybody is reading from the same page.

As this is a nascent field, addressing fragmented terminology now makes excellent sense — there are a limited number of papers in the field at the moment, compared to what is envisioned for the future. Compare that to other professions where archaic terminology continues. What something was known as back-in-the-day continues to today because it would be too much work, now, to embrace a new, consistent taxonomy. Especially the medical profession and its terms for various parts of the human anatomy. What profession, if any, has successfully redefined its nomenclature as is envisioned here?

Source: https://www.technologyreview.com/the-download/608725/scientists-are-defining-quantum-computing-terms-because-everyone-is-confused/


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 25 2017, @01:33PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 25 2017, @01:33PM (#558850)

    The cartoon sets a high bar.
    They actually do a pretty good job of describing the situation.
    Both here's what we think is happening in nature and here's our feeble attempt to model it in math.

    Hopefully, the IEEE will recognize the bar even if they don't clear it.
    The CC field is an infant.
        It has managed to corral a few Q-bits and connect them with a few special case constraints.
        Convergence to a stable solution meeting the constraints is iffy.

    Before CC is real, it needs many more Q-bits, many and more general purpose logic constraints, and robust convergence.
    What these look like remains to be seen.
    The tools which make these work will drive the terminology of CC.
    For the IEEE to say they can define this terminology now says they think they know things they don't.
    That sounds like a quantum situation in itself.