Post #4206198

2026-07-29 16:17 UTC

@FishFace@ioc.exchange What is interesting about the program BTW is not that it took 2 iterations but that it took 3 milliseconds on a mini-PC I bought on Amazon. What is important for a scientist to notice completely bypasses your attention. This is what makes it proof that ‘quantum computing’ is nonsense: it is finding the solution in a number of seconds that is supposed to be impossible. I am not going to do the calculation for you. AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 w/ Radeon 890M

Replies (1)

@FishFace@ioc.exchange 2026-07-29 17:23

@chemoelectric@masto.ai > You are using far too many words and far too much of it is jargon such as ‘unitary operator’ that mean absolutely nothing. "Unitary operator" is a standard term in mathematics; I learnt the definition during my degree. It is just a bounded linear operator U on a Hilbert space, such that U*U = UU* = the identity operator in that Hilbert space. "Tautologically complete" on the other hand, is not. And you haven't defined it after I asked you to. Please tell me what it means. Now that I have explained what a unitary operator means, please remember the point: that your implementation of Grover's algorithm uses non-unitary operations, so it does not simulate a quantum computer. > This is what makes it proof that ‘quantum computing’ is nonsense: it is finding the solution in a number of seconds that is supposed to be impossible. Is this an answer to my question about Grover's algorithm? Do you believe that, if the scientific consensus were correct, your program would need much longer to run? I have never heard any scientist say this or imply this. I think you are wrong that scientists believe this, and have misunderstood.

Open ##4206197