Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_iwfsmap wrote

[deleted]

−63

Substantial_Boiler t1_iwfvem8 wrote

Supercomputers aren't really meant to be impressive tech demos, at the end of the day they're meant for actual real-world applications

51

Avieshek OP t1_iwg3qod wrote

Then quantum computers would simply become the next supercomputers as it's just a term for commercial purposes with multiple stacks, you do realise that right?

What we are using can be termed as Classical Computers and if tomorrow's iPhone is a quantum computer onto everyone's hands then there's no reason a supercomputer in a University then would still be a classical computer.

19

12358 t1_iwggr2p wrote

Quantum computers are not a more powerful version of a supercomputer; they do different kinds of calculations, and solve problems differently, so they are used to solve different kinds of problems. They are not a replacement for supercomputers.

7

Avieshek OP t1_iwgh5i4 wrote

As said, Quantum & Classical are different breed of computers where there’s no parallel between and please refrain from twisting into your own version where nothing has been said regarding “Quantum being more powerful than Supercomputer” when I have just stated what supercomputer itself is to be comparing with quantum which is dumb.

1

themikker t1_iwfutq9 wrote

Quantum computers can still be fast.

You just won't be able to know where they are.

17

SAI_Peregrinus t1_iwhczon wrote

They still can't find the prime factors of the number 21 with a quantum computer. They're promising, not impressive (yet).

1

iiitme t1_iwfvjfl wrote

What’s with the downvotes this isn’t a serious comment

−24