Well, I can see what math was done. The problem is the false assertion. I learned in math classes that if you accept one false thing, you can prove everything, and consequently your understanding of the difference between what’s true and what’s not dwindles to zero. You can’t just believe one false thing.
If we actually “switched to quantum computers” it isn’t clear we would get an exponential trajectory at all—due to the proximity of physical limits. If we did get an exponential trajectory, I can see no coherent reason for thinking the doubling time would relate to that of classical computers—because the technology is quite different. Currently, quantum computers grow mostly by adding qubits—not by the shrinking in component size that drives Moore’s law in classical computers. That increases their quantum-parallelism, but doesn’t affect their speed.
Well, I can see what math was done. The problem is the false assertion. I learned in math classes that if you accept one false thing, you can prove everything, and consequently your understanding of the difference between what’s true and what’s not dwindles to zero. You can’t just believe one false thing.
If we actually “switched to quantum computers” it isn’t clear we would get an exponential trajectory at all—due to the proximity of physical limits. If we did get an exponential trajectory, I can see no coherent reason for thinking the doubling time would relate to that of classical computers—because the technology is quite different. Currently, quantum computers grow mostly by adding qubits—not by the shrinking in component size that drives Moore’s law in classical computers. That increases their quantum-parallelism, but doesn’t affect their speed.