Subj : Re: Incomputable
To   : comp.programming,comp.object
From : Chris Sonnack
Date : Thu Aug 18 2005 01:58 pm

Dmitry A. Kazakov writes:

>>> Not really. The simplest thing: you cannot take a random generator
>>> multiply it by another generator and get a third one - a product of.
>>> You can multiply realizations, but that won't give you a new
>>> independent generator.  The soul is gone... (:-))
>> 
>> But can't you use two hardware sources?  (Maybe I just don't follow.)
> 
> Three, you mean. Yes I can, but that's not computing. It is hardware
> construction. You can [possibly] assemble a generator, but you cannot
> compute it. [...]
> 
>> I mean the thing about Q/C is that it wants to use the hardware in a
>> way that we work very hard to prevent it from working now!  I'm just
>> not seeing the difference between a Q/M-driven source of random input
>> (such as a semi-conductor junction) processed conventionally, and
>> doing it all with Q/C.
> 
> The difference is huge. It would be not an input, but a value. It is the
> difference between a function and its value in one particular point. In
> terms of set theory it is a jump to a next cardinal number. [OK, it is all
> fictitious, so far.]

Okay, I follow.  It's *doable* now, just waaaay not practical.

-- 
|_ CJSonnack <Chris@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL  |
|_____________________________________________|_______________________|

.