Help answer threads with 0 replies.
Go Back > Blogs > Kenny the one-teen comittee to stamp out Proprietary $uckware
User Name


I decided to post a little introduction to myself here: Ask me who I was last March, and I would have had WinBloze 7 Beta on my main computer and would have been part of Micro$uck's test project for WinBloze 7 and would have been excited about it. However, that changed as soon as my network adapter changed and the new one worked with Linux. As soon as I tested the new adapter with Mint (I'd say about a year ago, in July 2009) I began to really value Linux for what it is.

However, I knew about Linux long before that. I started with gOS 2, which was my first distro. I had tried it back in about February 2008. I first learned about Linux back in mid-2007, from an article in PCMag that spanned several pages. I had quite a hard time back then, and Ubuntu Hardy was no different than gOS.

So then what took me so long from knowing about Linux to finally becoming an active user? My house was nothing but Wi-Fi. My mother set a secure wireless network up back then, and I couldn't connect to it because my adapter (Linksys WUSB54GSC) wasn't recognized by Linux. I had the patience to continue.

Then, in June 2008, my family got hit by the economic collapse here in the USA: The mortgage on my old house doubled and my family had to leave because of the rate increase. So, we were stuck in a hotel room until my family and I could end up in a new house. That Christmas, I wanted a netbook, and got my wish (the one I'm typing on, an Acer Aspire One AOA110-1545). It came with Linux preinstalled, and I liked it all around.

From then to June 2009, I still had WinBloze on my desktop, as Linux still didn't work with my wireless network adapter. Then, in June 2009 as I said, I got a new wireless network adapter, and in July decided to test it with Linux Mint 7. It worked, even from the Live CD! Now,

Rate this Entry

About quantum computing: The Quantum Integrity Postulate

Posted 09-09-2010 at 05:09 PM by Kenny_Strawn

While in physics class today at school, reading about nuclear/quantum physics reminded me of several PC World articles I have read before about quantum computing and the horror stories about data decoherence.

First of all, let me tell you what quantum computing is: It's the ability to process large numbers much faster and more accurately than current-day computers through the use of quantum binary data.

Example of classical (current) binary data:

Now, for example quantum data:

11 11 00 11
They are equivalents. The difference? In the latter example, each quantum bit is really two classical bits. This means that it would require four quantum bits to create a character that requires eight classical bits. This can result in a much better ability to crunch numbers than the current methods.

There's just one caveat: When the quantum data reacts with classical storage media or classical cables, it decoheres into classical data, resulting in a data flood.

Now, let's get to the point: The Quantum Integrity Postulate (of mine).

The postulate is: Quantum data and classical devices cannot interact. Based on this fact, **ALL** the components of a quantum computer -- the hard drive (or SSD), the CPU, the RAM, the motherboard, the internal data cables, the UARTs (serial ports), the CMOS, the power supply, etc. -- **MUST** be quantum for the computer to be quantum and not decohere.

Any of you willing to test this hypothesis please comment here.
Posted in Uncategorized
Views 1479 Comments 13
« Prev     Main     Next »
Total Comments 13


  1. Old Comment
    What is decoherence? The splitting of the 4 quantum bits into 8 bits?
    Posted 09-12-2010 at 03:52 PM by MTK358 MTK358 is offline
  2. Old Comment
    Basically the splitting of any one quantum bit into two classical ones.
    Posted 09-12-2010 at 10:11 PM by Kenny_Strawn Kenny_Strawn is offline
  3. Old Comment
    Also note that any sequence of quantum bits equals the square root of the same amount of classical bits.
    Posted 09-13-2010 at 02:37 AM by Kenny_Strawn Kenny_Strawn is offline
  4. Old Comment
    Originally Posted by Kenny_Strawn View Comment
    Also note that any sequence of quantum bits equals the square root of the same amount of classical bits.
    Huh? Why isn't it twice the number of quantum bits?
    Posted 09-13-2010 at 07:59 AM by MTK358 MTK358 is offline
  5. Old Comment
    It is the square of the number of quantum bits, not twice, because each quantum bit is a single digit.
    Posted 09-15-2010 at 05:13 PM by Kenny_Strawn Kenny_Strawn is offline
  6. Old Comment
    Yes, each digit adds two normal bits, right??? So it's twice the number.

    Because the number capable of being stored exponentially increases, doesn't mean that the number of digits exponentially increases.

    I know almost nothing about quantum computers, but I still can't believe that's true.
    Posted 09-16-2010 at 04:07 PM by MTK358 MTK358 is offline
    Updated 09-16-2010 at 04:09 PM by MTK358
  7. Old Comment
    It actually, in a C++ code sense, is:

    #include <stdio.h>
    #include <math.h>
    int main() {
      double qubits;
      double classical_bits;
      scanf("%lf", &classical_bits);
      qubits = pow(classical_bits, 2);
      printf("%lf", qubits);
      return 0;
    Essentially, a number made of quantum bits is not double that made of classical bits; it is the square of that made of classical bits. That being because each quantum bit to the left has a higher value than that to the right (of twice the value).
    Posted 09-16-2010 at 07:04 PM by Kenny_Strawn Kenny_Strawn is offline
    Updated 09-16-2010 at 07:06 PM by Kenny_Strawn
  8. Old Comment
    I think you're getting it wrong.

    8 bits can hold 256 values.

    16 bits (8 twice) can hold 65536 values (256 squared).
    Posted 09-16-2010 at 07:15 PM by MTK358 MTK358 is offline
  9. Old Comment
    Yes, but quantum bits essentially can have four possible binary values (00, 01, 10, and 11) meaning that essentially they can hold four different values, not just two. Also: Any quantum digit holds twice the value as the digit to the right of it. As such, here's the pattern:

    11 00 = 1100
    11 00 11 00 = 1111000011110000
    Two quantum bits equal four classical bits and four quantum bits equal 16 classical bits, and so on.
    Posted 09-16-2010 at 08:09 PM by Kenny_Strawn Kenny_Strawn is offline
  10. Old Comment
    That makes no sense whatsoever. Two "classical" bits can hold 4 values.
    Posted 09-16-2010 at 08:17 PM by MTK358 MTK358 is offline
  11. Old Comment
    Just confused, what is the quantum data equivalent of the normal binary data 0101?
    Posted 09-17-2010 at 02:28 AM by archieval archieval is offline
  12. Old Comment
    0101 in quantum data would essentially just be '01 11' (both values make up one digit). You see, quantum bits essentially hold 4 values at once, the '00' value being like 0, the '01' value being like 1, the '10' value being like 2, and the '11' value being like 3. So essentially, quantum data is not binary at all, but rather a number system in increments of 4 instead of 2 -- in some ways a 'quadary' data type.
    Posted 09-17-2010 at 07:01 PM by Kenny_Strawn Kenny_Strawn is offline
  13. Old Comment
    Let's see, 4 "quadary" (not sure if that's the right word, but it'll work) digits can hold 256 values (4^4). The same range can be achieved by 8 binary digits. Notice that 8 = 2 * 4.

    6 quadary digits can hold 4096 values. 12 binary digits can hold 4096 values. Notice that 12 = 2 * 6.
    Posted 09-17-2010 at 07:22 PM by MTK358 MTK358 is offline


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:39 AM.

Main Menu
Write for LQ is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration