Quantum Programming - Part 1

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 28 гру 2024
  • ▶ Visit brilliant.org/... to get started learning STEM for free, and the first 200 people will get 20% off their annual premium subscription
    INTRO
    In modern digital computers, these instructions resolve down to the manipulation of information represented by distinct binary states. These bits may be abstractly represented by various physical phenomena, such as by mechanical, optical, magnetic, or electric methods and the process by which this binary information is manipulated is also similarly versatile, with semiconductors being the most prolific medium for these machines. Fundamentally, a binary computer moves individual bits of data through a handful of logic gate types.
    LIMITATIONS OF ALGORITHMS
    In digital computing, binary information moves through a processing machine in discrete steps of time. This is known as an algorithm’s complexity. An example of such an algorithm would be one that determines if a number is odd or even. These are known as linear time algorithms and they execute at a rate that is directly correlated to the size of the algorithm’s input.
    This characteristic becomes obvious within a basic addition algorithm. Because the number of steps, and inherently the execution time is directly determined by the size of the number inputs, the algorithm scales linearly in time. Constant and linear time algorithms generally scale to practical execution times in common use cases, however, one category of algorithm in particular suffers from the characteristic of quickly becoming impractical as it grows. These are known as an exponential time algorithm and they pose a huge problem for traditional computers as the execution time can quickly grow to an impractical level as input size increases.
    QUBIT
    Much like how digital systems use bits to express their fundamental unit of information, quantum computers use an analog called a qubit. Quantum computing by contrast, is probabilistic. It is the manipulation of these probabilities as they move between qubits that form the basis quantum computing. Qubits are physically represented by quantum phenomena.
    HOW QUANTUM PROCESSING WORKS
    A qubit possesses an inherent phase component, and with this characteristic of a wave, a qubit’s phase can interfere either constructively or destructively to modify its probability magnitudes within an interaction.
    BLOCH SPHERE
    A Bloch sphere visualizes a qubit’s magnitude and phase using a vector within a sphere. In this representation, the two, classical bit states are located at the top and bottom poles where the probabilities become a certainty, while the remaining surface represent probabilistic quantum states, with the equator being a pure qubit state where either classical bit state is possible. When a measurement is made on a qubit, it decoheres to one of the polar definitive state levels based on its probability magnitude.
    PAULI GATES
    Pauli gates rotate the vector that represents qubit’s probability magnitude and phase, 180 degrees around the respective x, y and z axes of its Bloch sphere. For the X and Y gate, this effectively inverts the probability magnitude of the qubit while the Z gate only inverts its phase component.
    HADAMARD GATES
    Some quantum gates have no classic digital analogs. The Hadamard gate, or H gate is one of the most important unary quantum gates, and it exhibits this quantum uniqueness. Take a qubit at state level 1 for example. If a measurement is made in between two H gates, the collapsing of the first H gate’s superposition would destroy this information, making the second H gate’s effect only applicable to the collapsed state of the measurement.
    OTHER UNARY GATES
    In addition to the Pauli gates and the Hadamard Gate, two other fundamental gates known as the S gate and T gate are common to most quantum computing models.
    CONTROL GATES
    Control gates trigger a correlated change to a target qubit when a state condition of the control qubit is met. A CNOT gate causes a state flip of the target qubit, much like a digital NOT gate, when the control qubit is at state level of 1. Because the control qubit is placed in a superposition by the H gate, the correlation created by entanglement through the CNOT gate, also places the target qubit into a superposition.
    When the control or target qubit state is collapsed by measurement the other qubits' state is always guaranteed to be correlated by the CNOT operation. CNOT gates are used to create other composite control gates such as the CCNOT gate or Toffoli gate which requires two control qubits at a 1 state to invert the target qubit, the SWAP gate which swaps two qubit states, and the CZ gates which performs a phase flip. When combined with the fact that a qubit is continuous by nature and has infinite states, this quickly scales up to a magnitude of information processing that rapidly surpasses traditional computing.
    SUPPORT NEW MIND ON PATREON
    / newmind

КОМЕНТАРІ • 610

  • @NewMind
    @NewMind  2 роки тому +49

    ▶ Visit brilliant.org/NewMind to get started learning STEM for free, and the first 200 people will get 20% off their annual premium subscription

    • @YuvrajSingh-wf9jn
      @YuvrajSingh-wf9jn 2 роки тому +4

      Dear New Mind Creator's, I would suggest you to always attach the Source and References of the topic that you are displaying. This would ensure that whatever content you have created can be reviewed critically by your viewers. Thank you!!🤗🤗

    • @zh9664
      @zh9664 2 роки тому

      15:54 bro forgot his voice was gonna get uploaded to youtube for a second

    • @Metaldetectiontubeworldwide
      @Metaldetectiontubeworldwide 2 роки тому +2

      Wow that Hademar gate , lets me think " ..beam me up Scotty"..lol
      Grtz from the netherlands
      Johny geerts

    • @VerifyTheTruth
      @VerifyTheTruth 2 роки тому

      en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Injection_locking#Entrainment

    • @zh9664
      @zh9664 2 роки тому +3

      PLEASEEEEEEEEEEEE WHERE IS PART 2 PLEASEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

  • @chengong388
    @chengong388 2 роки тому +1376

    We desperately need more quantum computing videos that aren't just repeating "a q-bit can be both 1 and 0 at the same time".

    • @sloaiza81
      @sloaiza81 2 роки тому +52

      exactly.

    • @shaneofgames3825
      @shaneofgames3825 2 роки тому +10

      Lol

    • @crazyedo9979
      @crazyedo9979 2 роки тому +7

      Please start making some.😁

    • @SPPR89
      @SPPR89 2 роки тому +40

      dont forget that quantum entanglement is also repeated many times either

    • @hydropage2855
      @hydropage2855 2 роки тому +10

      Yeah for real. Leaves us who understand this better than the average person just hanging around

  • @d.i.a.5392
    @d.i.a.5392 2 роки тому +111

    00:10 The Algorithm
    00:53 Binary data- logic gate types
    01:10 CPU
    01:30 Digital computing- processors
    02:13 Algorithms complexity
    02:22 Constant time algorithms - most efficient
    02:55 Linear time alorithms
    03:38 Brute Force Method
    04:55 Exponential time algorithm
    05:12 Intractable property
    05:35 RSA algorithm
    06:00 Why exponential problems require Quantum Computers
    06:24 History of quantum mechanics-physics
    06:46 Paul Benioff
    06:54 Richard Feynman
    07:28 Quantum Computers
    07:35 Bits
    08:23 Quantum Comp- probabalistic
    08:32 Coherent Superposition
    09:06 Quantum phenomena
    09:24 Phase component (wave) interference
    10:12 Quantum circuit
    10:50 Statistical probabality
    11:20 Bloch Sphere
    12:04 Quantum logic gates
    12:15 Quantum gate vs classical gate
    12:29 Pauli gates X, Y, Z (180)
    13:18 Hadamard Gate H
    14:24 S (45), T(90) Phase gates
    14:43 Composite Gates Rx, Ry, Rz, R¥
    15:28 Entanglement
    15:53 Control Gate- conditional
    16:13 Control Not Gate ( C-not)
    16:45 Bell State
    17:25 Toffoli Gate
    17:32 Swap Gate
    17:36 CZ Gate
    You are welcome 🌹

    • @alystair
      @alystair 2 роки тому

      I think chapters should be added to these sort of videos... thanks

    • @mandjevantichelaar
      @mandjevantichelaar Рік тому

      Hero!

    • @rockcesar85
      @rockcesar85 Рік тому

      Wow, beauty and smart!. 😏👍

    • @WeedMIC
      @WeedMIC Рік тому

      Ty, so he never gets to any programming samples/demos at all.

    • @eyramgervais6767
      @eyramgervais6767 8 місяців тому

      Thank you

  • @razerpine1748
    @razerpine1748 2 роки тому +1486

    I can't wait to watch this and not understand anything

    • @NewMind
      @NewMind  2 роки тому +396

      Just take it in and let your brain sort it out while you sleep. That's how I learned to do a backflip 😆

    • @garrysekelli6776
      @garrysekelli6776 2 роки тому +23

      İm almost through. Didnt understand Jack.

    • @garrysekelli6776
      @garrysekelli6776 2 роки тому +12

      @@NewMind wait are you Max Deutsch? The guy who defeated magnus Carlson with a mental algorithm?

    • @Shoiiow
      @Shoiiow 2 роки тому +1

      @@NewMind proof video when?

    • @maxuabo
      @maxuabo 2 роки тому +19

      Feels pointless to watch if you’re not heavily involved in computer science already

  • @lemonsavery
    @lemonsavery 2 роки тому +307

    You did an amazing job. I'm a software developer who double majored in Computer Science and Physics. Representing the qubit states as positions on the surface of a sphere did wonders for my ability to actually grasp the transformations being done upon them. This paired with working through and explaining the fundamental gates was an absolute banger of an educational service. Thank you.
    I can't imagine having to learn this in a classroom as opposed to a video. I probably spent twice the video's length rewinding and repeating pieces of dialog until I could parse them out fully.

    • @dynodyno6970
      @dynodyno6970 2 роки тому +2

      Any advice for first year comp sci?

    • @lemonsavery
      @lemonsavery 2 роки тому +20

      @@dynodyno6970 I don't know why that feels like such a big question. I don't feel like I can get back into the head of an intro-course computer scientist anymore, but I do have some things to say?
      - My understanding is that intro comp sci is a filter class. It gives you a taste, and it turns people away who get too frustrated at the kinds of problems computers throw at you. After this course, *it's all design philosophy*, until much later when you take Algorithms & Data Structures and Computer Architecture. The design philosophy classes will seem like obvious vague uselessness, UNLESS you've actually experienced the pain of trying to make a respectably sized program without good design first. Scraping together a program at 3am that barely does the thing you want it to do IS NOT SO DIFFICULT. What is extremely difficult is trying to make sense of the code and modify it in the morning, so that you can improve it and add new features. Until you've experienced the pain of trying to work with badly designed code, you won't understand design philosophy. However, the design philosophy you're taught may be woefully out of date. You'll probably be recommended a book like "Clean Code", which if I understand correctly, is very out of date, and you should not read it. I'm currently reading one called "A Philosophy of Software Design", published in 2018. I've only been employed for a year and a half as a full stack web developer, and I'm only now appreciating what it has to tell me.
      - You'll probably have an easier time learning from videos than from text books.
      - You likely won't really understand something until you've tried to build with it.
      - Patience. Frustration is the mind killer.
      - Those error messages are indeed telling you what's wrong, but they can be hard to understand given your lack of knowledge in your first course.
      - Googling problems and best practices is MUCH OF YOUR JOB. Get really really good at writing search queries. The answer to your problem is out there 95% of the time, you just need the right query to find it.
      - I'm tired now bye
      Why are you taking intro comp sci? I feel like I could think of more things if I knew why you were interested, and maybe which subdomain of comp sci you were drawn towards.

    • @THEMAX00000
      @THEMAX00000 2 роки тому

      Avery Lemons
      So that would be a no then?

    • @kepler-452b7
      @kepler-452b7 2 роки тому

      Hello. Do you think I can do my master's degree in astrophysics if I choose computer engineering for my undergrad ? I love physics but there is practically no jobs for it in my country so I'm doing that just to be safe if I don't travel

    • @lemonsavery
      @lemonsavery 2 роки тому +2

      @@kepler-452b7 First of all, I'm in my early twenties, so I'm not the bastion of knowledge you may think I am.
      Secondly, lol, I kinda did something like that. When finishing my Physics major, I realized that I would need to go to grad school for physics if I wanted to have marketable skills in it. I did not want to do this, so I quickly pivoted and was able to BARELY complete a second major as Computer Science. I didn't know what I wanted to do, but I knew that being good with computers could kinda make me useful anywhere I choose to go.
      *If you can*, I personally think it's a great idea to also do Computer Science. Worst case scenario, you'll be employable. But also you'll be able to create more astronomy tools for yourself.
      As a junior in high school, I did a project with the local university where we combed through Kepler data and used Python to turn some of the raw data into a huge folder of images of photometric curve graphs. I was a dunce when it came to Python at the time, but now I could have been so much more helpful.

  • @teslainvestah5003
    @teslainvestah5003 2 роки тому +71

    6:15 - this measurement is supposed to be in core years, not years per core.
    Core years means that your productivity is the product of the number of cores you have and the number of years you work. So 20 core years could mean 1 core working for 20 years, 2 cores working together for 10 years, or 20 cores working together for 1 year.
    if more difficult problems were said to take more "years per core", that would mean that adding more cores would make the problem take longer to solve, which doesn't make sense for this problem, unless large clusters of CPUs unionize and go on strike.

    • @smurfo4221
      @smurfo4221 2 роки тому +7

      Thank you for the clarification, was pretty confused since those measurements didn't really seem to add up.

    • @Param3021
      @Param3021 11 місяців тому

      Thanks for clarifying

  • @KevinNijmeijer
    @KevinNijmeijer 2 роки тому +12

    This has been by far the best explanation of quantum computing I've seen on youtube. Both very accessible language but also deep information. Thank you! Can't wait for part 2!

  • @newchannelization
    @newchannelization 2 роки тому +2

    I always love the voice of the speaker and the word choices too. It is like a silken blanket for my ears and mind

  • @youTapdat
    @youTapdat 2 роки тому +109

    Is part 2 going to include how these quantum gates are created? I liked the visual representations of them in the video, but I struggle to understand how one goes about actually making one of these gates. Is similar to conventional logic where transistors are combined to create gates so the quantum equivalent would be using qubits to create quantum gates?

    • @sillysad3198
      @sillysad3198 2 роки тому

      no.
      they dont exist.
      and they inprinciple can not exist.
      case closed.

    • @whtiequillBj
      @whtiequillBj 2 роки тому +4

      I don't think he's going to go into how gates are made. Probably the limitations of use as a quantum computer needs to run somewhere near absolute zero.

    • @NewMind
      @NewMind  2 роки тому +75

      I'll be focusing more on the how the concept can be utilized for practical computing and the algorithms that are designed around it. Though I will touch a bit on the physical aspects and it's shortcomings. It's still a highly theoretical field.

    • @KohuGaly
      @KohuGaly 2 роки тому +28

      The construction of the gate highly depends on how the qubits are physically represented. For example, if the qubit is polarization of photon, than a mirror is a single-input logic gate (it reflects the polarization along certain an axis). So is a delay line (shifts the phase). For electron spin, such logic gate could be a magnetic field applied in specific direction for certain amount of time.
      Where it gets complicated are multi-input logic gates. You need some way to make the qubits interact in way that puts them in superposition. With photons, this is nearly impossible. With superconductor-based circuits logic gates are somewhat easier to construct, but moving the qubits is harder.
      In general, the quantum gate is not a device. It is a process you apply to the qubits that are stored somewhere.

    • @ZGorlock
      @ZGorlock 2 роки тому +12

      Like KohuGaly said, there is more than one way to skin Schrödinger's cat.
      With classical computing for example, you could implement logic gates using whatever you want really, as long the inputs and outputs behave as expected:
      You could use voltages on wires
      Or water in containers: ua-cam.com/video/IxXaizglscw/v-deo.html
      Or mechanical force in legos: ua-cam.com/video/5X_Ft4YR_wU/v-deo.html
      Or redstone in Minecraft: ua-cam.com/video/ggHEpL87i-I/v-deo.html
      We just got really good at making them really small and fast using transistors so that's what we do.
      Boolean logic existed long before computers did, it took a lot of effort to get our physical representations to be as fast and efficient as they are. Likewise, with quantum computing, the math is there, the race is now to design and build the best platform for it to run on.
      And that could mean fastest / cheapest / easiest / warmest / etc. Unlike with classical computers, even in 50 years, there will likely still be multiple designs which use different types of qubits that are best suited for their specific applications.

  • @mohammedsafiahmed1639
    @mohammedsafiahmed1639 2 роки тому +1

    the 'quantum mechanics' part of this video starts at around 6:34. Prior to that, the video talks about computer architecture and algorithmic complexity. That in itself is the best explanation I've ever come across.

  • @chaser107
    @chaser107 2 роки тому +6

    In fact, New Mind's approach is what I hope to be the new wave of edu YT, embracing the technical details with clarity and focus (and amazing visual support). I watched a lot vids about quantum computing and all I got was a little more than knowing it exists. But with NM I am left both enlightened and fascinated. So I encourage you: don't shy away from fairly mundane but poorly understood science.

  • @sm64guy28
    @sm64guy28 2 роки тому +15

    This is the first in depth quantum computer video I’ve found in years! I was so interested in the subject, but couldn’t find a video explaining what those « quantum gates » were in detail. Really looking forward to watching part 2, keep it up!

    • @urimtefiki226
      @urimtefiki226 Рік тому

      Proton proton collusion and wave theory fo light can help you understand together with peridodontitis and ostheomielitis in the heart and endocarditis. Then you go to synapsis and neural transmission which is 1-120 m per second, and then you can understand the computer ;). First learn the human neuronal system then you move to computer and then only being a psychopath you can make logic of all this, as for me what tryed to do still is unknown for me.

  • @Ara_-gu8mk
    @Ara_-gu8mk 2 роки тому +1

    I really like the way you maintain standards of your videos. "Made for science not specifically for views". Being an undergrad I like your vids a lot.

  • @greggapowell67
    @greggapowell67 2 роки тому +2

    This was the best single explanation of Quantum computing that I have ever encountered. Thanks.

  • @codercrisYT
    @codercrisYT 2 роки тому +4

    This has been the best video I've seen on quantum computing. Respect. I love to learn.

  • @emanuellucaci5020
    @emanuellucaci5020 2 роки тому +12

    As a Mechatronics engineer I understood pretty much nothing and loved it at the same time.
    It would be interesting to see how a computer like this would work step by step in a simple program.

    • @rockyrivermushrooms529
      @rockyrivermushrooms529 2 роки тому +1

      People already have a hard enough time with ladder logic. Lol

    • @craigslist6988
      @craigslist6988 2 роки тому

      If you mean conceptually solving an example math problem using the gates, I think that's exactly what he's going to be the 2nd video. Looking forward to it, too.

  • @arlogodfrey1508
    @arlogodfrey1508 2 роки тому

    I've never needed a "part 2" this badly, that was an AMAZING explainer in the second half. I feel like I finally understand quantum computing enough to start poking at it, and I'm so hyped to see where this technology goes.
    One note - entanglement doesn't allow for faster-than-light communication. If I recall correctly, it still requires 1 bit of classical information to make the entanglement happen, and using the qubit destroys it, meaning you need to do more entanglement. Or something to that effect. Googling "quantum entanglement faster than light" should give you what you need.
    That's still _really_ fast, because it essentially means computation and information is all at the speed of light. You're not running on metal and silicon -- you're running on reality itself.

    • @craigslist6988
      @craigslist6988 2 роки тому

      Yes, I have yet to see anything show that quantum entanglement is effectively different from if I wrote A and B on pieces of paper, sealed them in separate envelopes, gave you one, traveled ten million light years in the opposite direction of you, opened my envelope and seeing that it has A written on it, learn that your paper says B, and therefore claim I have moved information faster than the speed of light.
      It is very tempting to think it may be possible to transmit data faster than light, and people try to concoct ways to do it with entanglement, but it seems that even when it appears possible on paper there's some physical reason it doesn't actually work. Similar to other areas of science, like perpetual motion machines.
      There are meaningful differences versus my A/B example, I can't remember what they are but they are interesting and people are trying to find applications...
      But none of them break "information conservation", or you'd see money pouring into the first video feed of the future.
      Sadly, no ansible for us anytime in the near future, it seems.

    • @arlogodfrey1508
      @arlogodfrey1508 2 роки тому

      @@craigslist6988 I don't think the A/B example is accurate. It's mathematically guaranteed that the two will be the same, you just don't know which one until you open it.
      I don't think the actual, provable math ever showed faster than light information travel was possible - that's just something people keep saying.

  • @The_Study_Bug
    @The_Study_Bug 2 роки тому +15

    During this summer I participated in a quantum computing camp where we learned all of these concepts, and even got to code them on really quantum computers. Thank u for the video, it's really good for reviewing those concepts!

    • @seetsamolapo5600
      @seetsamolapo5600 2 роки тому +4

      Do you still use languages like python, java etc? And paradigms like procedural and oop?

    • @Nobody-tj9jo
      @Nobody-tj9jo 2 роки тому

      What’s the name of the program?

    • @rgloria40
      @rgloria40 9 місяців тому

      Did you use windows os, Apple IOS or Linux? I bet the computer was already turn on. Did they run a video on the same machine?

  • @kunai9809
    @kunai9809 2 роки тому +6

    Wow. You always manage to dive deep into these topics and not just stop at a basic level like others. Very nice!

    • @malikashtar7216
      @malikashtar7216 2 роки тому

      exactlyyy

    • @urimtefiki226
      @urimtefiki226 Рік тому

      He goes so deep so that he talks bullshit, those who dont have creativity and have low IQ the internet is full of those kind of sharlatans.

    • @kunai9809
      @kunai9809 Рік тому

      @@urimtefiki226 now i'm curious, what was factually wrong here?

  • @Shaunmcdonogh-shaunsurfing
    @Shaunmcdonogh-shaunsurfing 2 роки тому +3

    Part 2, Part 2, Part 2…I can’t wait. Really struggling to understand how a problem is encoded and then the solution decoded with quantum computers.

  • @CarelessForce
    @CarelessForce 2 роки тому +13

    Incredible video, love the practical emphasis but I'd also love to understand how these gates actually work, highly doubt there's a better explanation than what you could provide out there. Either way, looking forward to part 2 :)

    • @rickgreer7203
      @rickgreer7203 2 роки тому

      This gets a bit into it ua-cam.com/video/-UlxHPIEVqA/v-deo.html and this presentation has some detail as well quantum.phys.cmu.edu/QCQI/QC_CMU2 ...but it is a lot harder to find (right now) than the theory. (I haven't listed to it, by ua-cam.com/video/A750loExcbM/v-deo.html might have promise as well.)

  • @sntk1
    @sntk1 2 роки тому +11

    Thanks for your clear and concise intro. I'm struck by both your grasp of what's essential and by your ability to cover a lot of territory without feeling hurried.

  • @nickwilson8119
    @nickwilson8119 2 роки тому +3

    Part 2 please! This was so good. Also viewership generally drops as a series goes on so fingers crossed for a little bit of maths as well :)

  • @kamana6435
    @kamana6435 2 роки тому +9

    Wow that was awesome thanks so much I learnt a lot particularly about the logic quantum gates. Also I never knew about the speed of entanglement I assumed it was instantaneous. Really looking forward to future videos from your channel. Keep up the quality content.

  • @Darthvanger
    @Darthvanger Рік тому

    Bro you're crazy :D
    How can you so casually make a video on such a complicated topic.
    Like it's as easy as 2+2 for you.
    The animations/explanations are so beautiful at the same time!

  • @manofcultura
    @manofcultura 2 роки тому +10

    Can’t wait for quantum computing to be used for its real purpose. Programming actual AI responses and keeping track of complex relationship matrices in Visual Novels.

  • @vi5halll
    @vi5halll 2 роки тому +1

    Totally loved the video, I don't know if enough people on UA-cam will be interested on this topic, but i'm making sure i like and comment to show my appreciation!
    Thank you for this video😊😊😊😊❤❤

  • @selvestravicius
    @selvestravicius 2 роки тому +1

    This One was solid. The music on point. Thank you.

  • @raynfall77_69
    @raynfall77_69 2 роки тому +2

    I watch this video to humble myself when I feel smart.

  • @alexengineering3754
    @alexengineering3754 6 місяців тому

    This is probably the best video on this topic

  • @msaad8053
    @msaad8053 Рік тому

    Quantum mechanics, programming computing or whatever it is literally magic , we've come so far , that we can create literal magic

  • @levinevara8592
    @levinevara8592 2 роки тому

    I never understood this quantum bit hype as seeing that it's purely based on probability, I thought that it could fatally produce inaccurate results.
    And now that you've explained how these probability could be manipulated using gates and advanced math stuffs. As a math lover, I certainly feel proud knowing that these thousands of years of math discovery can be finally given a justification to how these math stuffs can be applied. What a time to be alive

    • @eltornado7777
      @eltornado7777 2 роки тому

      Maths has been essential to several fields lol why

  • @wk8219
    @wk8219 2 роки тому +1

    Thank you, this was soooo good. Admittedly I did not understand it as much as I would have liked but it is the very first time I’ve ever watched a video or read an article where I honestly believed the author knew how quantum computers actually worked. It has been repeatedly disappointing to read the title of an article/video and to find out quite quickly that the author has no idea what they are talking about. I very much look forward to the rest of the series. 😊👍

  • @C-M-E
    @C-M-E 2 роки тому +1

    Quantum computing is like asking me to build something then make an electrical diagram instead of a blueprint. I can think of some genius solution, put it in a mechanical drawing and build it, but ask me how the electrics work, I'll just wave my angle grinder at you and use my Jedi mind tricks. "This is not the right engineer you're looking for. Go two doors down, make a left and ask for Jeff. Move along."

  • @Haligonian
    @Haligonian Рік тому +3

    Good video! Where's Pt 2?

  • @zex992001
    @zex992001 2 роки тому +1

    Thank you for explaining the gates and the sphere representation of the quantum qubits. This was a great video.

  • @tylerpedigo2938
    @tylerpedigo2938 2 роки тому +2

    Qubits that are entangled, when measured, their outcomes aren’t dependent on each other therefore there is no “communication” happening faster than the speed of light. Their states were set when they were entangled

  • @deebee7786
    @deebee7786 2 роки тому +1

    Thanks for the quantum knowledge, now I have learned something I still don't know

  • @michaelzerihun1135
    @michaelzerihun1135 Рік тому +3

    This video has get explanation. I love it. Where can I find part 2?

  • @johnniefujita
    @johnniefujita 2 роки тому

    congrats friend... Linear algebra and general geometry helped me to fully grasp the content without ever directly studying quantum computing, although i suspect, one day, as a software engineer i will have to study it.
    The idea that ortogonality implies dimensionality, with weak or semantics codependency, helped me a lot to intuitionally visualize the importance of phase and the z axis rotations. also nlp models helped me on understading how we can encode oposition and the degree of this oposition into 180 vectors of variable length from 0 to 1 with origin from the center of the semantic space. Thanks man.

    • @johnniefujita
      @johnniefujita 2 роки тому

      weak or none*

    • @johnniefujita
      @johnniefujita 2 роки тому

      i could feel the power of collapsing entangled qubits over comptutations.

    • @johnniefujita
      @johnniefujita 2 роки тому

      Finally... I never understood how we could leverage a non-deterministic phenom to generate must be deterministic results, and your explanation that we would collect statistical data from many iterations and probably empirically test the outcome made it clear to me. Probably one feature of this kind of computation will be precision treshold sufficiency, when the result is good enough to not demand further narrowing of the probability distribution for the empirical phase.

  • @bovanshi6564
    @bovanshi6564 2 роки тому +2

    Dude, this is so well presented!

  • @locusf2
    @locusf2 2 роки тому +17

    The most unfortunate thing about quantum computing is that its not really computing in a sense that would be general. This means that the programs are only for a single purpose, which means that quantum computers are really quantum devices. General programmability is something that is likely not going to happen any time soon as there are quite many challenges in making our deterministic models of computation relate to the inherently stocastic model of quantum computing.
    So its doubtful that any generalized augmentation of current computer capabilities would be likely yet. The entire concept of quantum computing is still really interesting.

    • @oO0Xenos0Oo
      @oO0Xenos0Oo 2 роки тому +2

      Wouldnt it be a good idea to combine traditional hardware with quantum hardware? You could build all kinds of unprogrammable small quantum circuits that are used all the time and connect these via classic electrical components that are able to be programmed. So by programming the connections between the inputs and outputs of every quantun circuit you might be able to create adjustable software.

    • @KohuGaly
      @KohuGaly 2 роки тому +4

      All programs, even classical ones, are single purpose. Quantum computers, as envisioned currently, have a finite register of qubits, a set of quantum logic gates that can be applied to arbitrary qubits in the register, and a classical control unit, that schedules which gate is to be applied.
      The quantum register of N qubits represents a unit vector in 2^N dimensional complex-valued space. The quantum computer can perform any length-preserving reversible linear transformation of that unit vector, in polynomial number of steps. A classical computer would need exponential memory and time to perform such operation.
      The quantum computer is practical to use only if the problem at hand can be expressed as aforementioned transformation and no polynomial-time/memory classical algorithm is known.
      I don't think that a quantum computer with quantum control unit is possible.

    • @pigworts2
      @pigworts2 2 роки тому +1

      There's a very interesting paper by Ben Barlett from Stanford last year that proposes a design of quantum computer that could be truly reprogrammable, as it is essentially a classical computer with access to a bunch of qubits circulating in a loop that can be reused whenever. You're right that figuring out how to program these things is difficult, but there were some very interesting talks about programming languages for hybrid classical-quantum programs this year at the QPL conference that you might want to check out. In particular I thought Finn Voichick's talk on Qunity was super cool, as it models measurements through exception handling! I would avoid the talks on Quipper unless you're a category theory wizard.

  • @XenXenOfficial
    @XenXenOfficial 2 роки тому +4

    One thing I always loved about figuring out Even/Odd numbers is that you don't need to use a loop or even use the modulus operator. The beauty of X & 1 is hard to beat, just check if the last bit is set. And since 1 and 0 are considered true or false, you don't even need to check if it's equal to anything. The modulus operator is quite expensive at much larger numbers (depending how its implemented in the language), which tbh I'm sure most programmers here woulda just immediately assumed that was what was going on at 2:30

    • @gravechest7392
      @gravechest7392 2 роки тому

      yeah, modulus cost the same as division if I am correct.

    • @shambhav9534
      @shambhav9534 2 роки тому

      It is not even remotely related to how the programming language implements it. It's implemented via the CPU and is very quick. It's still much slower than simply bit and, but still quick. And also, you do have to negate the result. If the last bit is not set, it's even. So, for checking if the number's odd, no negating would be required, but with checking whether it's even, it would.

    • @XenXenOfficial
      @XenXenOfficial 2 роки тому +1

      @@shambhav9534 I'm sorry, but you're correct and incorrect. Yes, the CPUs ALU literally does some things on it's own, I'm just saying that modulus and divison isn't always implemented the way you think it is. And btw, CPU can do the basic commands you commonly know, XOR, OR, AND, add, subtract, etc, but it can't do modulus or division, there's algorithms implemented to simulate that function (To quickly estimate division on AMD cpus they use the Goldschmidt method). And for example, modulus in python is actually implemented with a .c algorithm and the modulus operator just calls to that function. Why do you think theres operator overloading in Python? You can change what the operator does, it isn't prebuilt inside the CPU, the call to a basic command is. The reason why + is addition in almost all languages is because its what we expect it to do. But however, if we implement that weirdly it cause issues, take the language BrainFu*k for example.

    • @shambhav9534
      @shambhav9534 2 роки тому +1

      @@XenXenOfficial Do you know of the "div" instruction? It does integer division and also provides with the remainder right there in the dx register. Every language will call that instruction. It does not depend on what the language implements. Well, Python does not. I have literally no idea why. And most C compilers will also do some weird dark magic for performance, which I doubt the effectiveness off. But anyway, the fact remains, your CPU can tell you the remainder of a division and no algorithms are required.
      I can already tell you're not that knowledgeable in this subject (neither am I). You're retelling basic facts as if they are revelations and used the phrase ".c algorithm". I'm not saying this is bad or anything, it's just that I know you're not so experienced. I'm no psychologist; I may be wrong (don't complain if I'm wrong). This doesn't imply that I'm an expert though, or that I know more than you. I just made a prediction and am waiting for you to reply to see if I'm right.

    • @XenXenOfficial
      @XenXenOfficial 2 роки тому +1

      @@shambhav9534 You're correct the DIV instruction exists, but that's on other architectures like POWER FAMILY. I personally feel like we're both correct and both have inaccuracies in our comments, but I also know personally that programming languages are a human created contruct with their own definitions on what is & is not, and I know that unless you truly know what's going on under the hood of a language, you can't truly say or know what it's doing. That's also why some languages are more efficient in some use cases, like you wouldn't use Python for genuine software cause of their type juggling, but that can also go for JavaScript or even C for their type casting. That's all under-the-hood things you wouldn't know unless you just... Know. And I bring that up cause it applies the same to modulus

  • @CompleteAnimation
    @CompleteAnimation 2 роки тому +24

    I've been watching videos about quantum computing since 2017. I still feel like I don't really get it, but I hope to see the technology advance!
    Who knows? In 20 years, a gaming PC might be powered by a GPU with quantum acceleration built in!

    • @sillysad3198
      @sillysad3198 2 роки тому +1

      > I don't really get it
      it means you know something about physics, and yor mind has a strong grip of reality.
      all this Q. computing stuff is a YYYUGE HOAX

    • @NewMind
      @NewMind  2 роки тому +20

      Part 2 will probably shed some light on why they probably won't ever be found in general purpose computers- If quantum computing even becomes practical.

    • @NoOriginalContentOfficial
      @NoOriginalContentOfficial 2 роки тому

      Noooo

    • @RaviKumar-df5mk
      @RaviKumar-df5mk 2 роки тому +2

      @@NewMind I feel like, it can be useful for specific tasks such as GPUs used for visual computing. We might see QPU as an additional component in maybe the next 3-4 decades.

    • @codercrisYT
      @codercrisYT 2 роки тому +2

      @@NewMind That's a bold statement to make saying quantum computers won't be around for normal people. I'll be back to prove you wrong in the future. For now I'm waiting for part two.

  • @sloaiza81
    @sloaiza81 2 роки тому

    Bravo. Best explaination of Quantum Computing on youtube.

  • @jacklauer1
    @jacklauer1 2 роки тому +1

    I have listened to many explanations of quantum computing, and your video was the first that got me to actually understand. Thank you. I intend to pursue this field.

  • @Sid-be9wr
    @Sid-be9wr 2 роки тому +2

    For anyone looking to dig deeper, "Quantum Computation and Quantum Information" by Michael Nielsen and Isaac Chuang is a great text on this topic. I recently started reading it, and I'm already struggling with the math in it, so I try to pick it up needed as I go cuz this stuff is so damn interesting.

  • @FirestormX9
    @FirestormX9 2 роки тому +1

    Always a joy to experience a video from your mind, New Mind!

  • @rtl6832
    @rtl6832 2 роки тому

    An explanation that actually made sense, and not just "qBiTs CaN bE 1 Or 0 At ThE sAmE tImE" 👏

  • @AaronNel
    @AaronNel Рік тому

    Fantastic to have logic circuits explained at the quantum level

  • @g.paudra8942
    @g.paudra8942 2 роки тому +4

    Thank you for the explanation and visualization! Now i understand and don't understand quantum computing at the same time

  • @BirdbrainEngineer
    @BirdbrainEngineer 2 роки тому +3

    Addition is actually faster than O(n) (linear) time. Addition can be done in O(log(n)) time (which is **a lot** more efficient than just linear time) by using "carry look ahead" addition.
    A better example of a linear time algorithm would have been to find the maximum or minimum value in any list - there is absolutely no way to do it faster than linear time as you need to check each element for whether they are the largest or smallest element encountered.

    • @Takyodor2
      @Takyodor2 2 роки тому +1

      Don't you still have to check each of the bits you "skip" (making it an O(n) algorithm)? I'm talking pure algorithm here, not specialized, parallel hardware that can look at all of the bits at the same time and "cheat" the time complexity by moving the carry past several bits at a time. (Is it called "parallel time complexity"?)

  • @satvikgupta1311
    @satvikgupta1311 2 роки тому

    Your animations are just MINDBLOWING DUDE!!
    Couldnt take my eyes off em!
    And gr8 work explaining this. I've been delving into this domain for some time now and this is simply ONE OF THE BEST introductions I've found.

  • @Ta_3-k8n
    @Ta_3-k8n 2 роки тому

    Keep this series going for a long time please.

  • @kql-wm5mo
    @kql-wm5mo Рік тому

    What an intrigue you left in the end... It's been 5 moths already, where is the 2nd part?? Can't wait to watch it!!

  • @gschitz
    @gschitz Рік тому +1

    ⥊ 360: 20
    0: Good (if not good, then not zero)
    0001: Uniqueness
    001: Identity
    002: Individuality
    003: Variability
    004: Diversity
    005: Tolerance / Inclusion
    006: Acceptance
    007: Consonance / Harmony
    008:
    009: Transcendence
    01: Awareness
    02: Diversion
    03: Sensing
    04: Love
    05: Grace
    06: Reasoning
    07: Ingenuity
    08: Purity
    09: Truth Seeking
    1: Ethical
    2: Problem-Solution
    3: Situation
    4: Abstraction
    5: Expression Concrete
    6: Why/Who/When/How/Where/What
    7: Information/Code
    8: Stability
    9: Sanity
    10: Network (Good Network, because zero)
    11: Justice
    12: Time/Spread/Dissipation/Easter
    13: Death / Fact
    14: Cognition
    15: Agent
    16: Reason
    17: Discourse
    18: State
    19: Discipline / Control
    20: Judgement
    21: To Solve Problems with Ethics
    22: Resistance/Endure Introspection
    23: Consideration
    24: Humor / Mental State
    25: Behavior
    26: Motivation
    27: Cohesion
    28: Dependability
    29: Diagnostic
    30: Liberty Subject Wellness
    31: Consent
    32: Discernment
    33: Response
    34: Ideas
    35: Showing
    36: Option
    37: Opinion
    38: Decision
    39: Prognostic
    40: Wellness
    41: Attention / Idea
    42: Critical Thinking
    43: Acknowledgment
    44: Free Love
    45: Plan / Task Force
    46: Purpose
    47: Perspective
    48: Character
    49: Ambition
    50: Good Expression
    51: Manifestation
    52: Support
    53: Respect
    54: Care
    55: Peace / War
    56: Pointing / Profiling
    57: Tell / Counter-Terrorism
    58: Invoking / Building
    59: Proficiency / To Excel
    60: Certainty
    61: Identification
    62: Qualification / Characterization
    63: Inquiring
    64: Conjecturing
    65: Function / Role
    66: Investigation
    67: Arguing
    68: Indicator
    69: Scrutinity
    70: Validation
    71: Illustration / Knowledge
    72: Construct
    73: Explanation / Informing
    74: Data
    75: Materialization
    76: Delineation / Instruction
    77: Flow / Cadency
    78: Share
    79: Accountability
    80: Personal Soverenity
    81: Independency Constancy
    82: Resilience
    83: Established
    84: Autonomy
    85: Executing
    86: Authority
    87: Stream
    88: Consistency
    89: Boldness
    90: Wisdom
    91: Assertiveness
    92: Optimism
    93: Scrupulousness
    94: Integrality
    95: Composure
    96: Blockchain: ⥊ (TRACE MARKER)
    97: Anarchy
    98: Veganism
    99: Revolution
    100: Liberation
    101: Partnership / Peer-2-Peer
    102: Decentralized Network
    103: Financial Revolution
    104: Production Revolution
    105: Labour Reorganization
    106: Needs Evaluation
    107: Instruction
    108: Personal Sovereignty
    109: Resources Availability
    110: Frankness
    111: Honor
    112: Distributed Ledger
    113: Privacy
    114: Abolitionism
    115: Pride
    116: Justifiable
    119: Mission
    120: Harvest
    121: Deliverance
    122: To Sort Out
    125: Differentiate
    126: Distinguish
    130: Realization
    131: Fulfillment
    132: Regard
    133: Responsable
    134: Address
    135: Execute
    136: Obtain
    138: To Mark
    140: Serenity
    141: Idea
    144: To Notice
    148: Mindfulness
    150: Good Character
    151: Virtue
    153: Declaring
    155: Perform
    158: Rising
    160: Technology
    161: Communication Systems
    166: Causality
    167: To Label
    170: Knowledge
    185: System Accessibility
    181: Structure
    199: The Mission
    200: Sanctuary
    209: Enlist
    210: Resolution
    211: To Engage
    212: Secure
    215: Mobilize
    219: Annihilation
    220: Contemplation / Meditation
    221: Either Way / Alignment
    222: Cooperation
    230: Resilience
    250: To Thrive
    255: To Emerge
    266: Correlation
    300: Crusade / Jihad
    301: Confront
    309: Consensus
    310: Cell Net
    311: Agreement
    320: Deliberation
    322: Oportunity
    330: Win-Win
    331: Bodily Autonomy
    333: Abundance
    340: Conceive
    353: Energy Management
    360: Technology
    373: Remote Killing
    370: Efficiency
    390: Economicity
    400: Earth Population
    410: Permaculture
    430: Ecosystem
    440: Fellowship
    444: Direct Digital Democracy
    500: Assumption
    501: Leadership
    510: Admiration
    511: Honorable
    512: Altruism
    520: Proficiency
    530: Acceptance
    535: Denoucing
    540: Appreciation
    550: Diplomacy
    555: Gathering
    556: To Pick Up Someone/Something
    590: Excellency
    600: Organizator
    620: Diagnose
    660: Operation
    661: Operator
    665: Role
    666: Method
    676: Deduce
    700: Constitution
    710: Intelligence
    717: Desing
    720: Quantum Mechanics
    733: Argorithm Explaining
    747: Artificial Intelligence
    750: Consolidation
    751: Enlightment
    757: Prompt
    766: Plan
    770: The Gear
    771: File
    773: Algorithm Recoginzing
    775: Output
    777: Pattern / Rhetoric
    778: Development
    780: Systematization
    799: Revolution Algorithm
    800: Providence / Heroism
    801: Production
    802: Necessities
    803: Resorces
    804: Energy
    808: Renewable Cycle
    810: Permaculture
    820: Management
    830: Logistics
    831: Scheme
    832: Reach
    833: Demand
    834: Stock
    835: Distribution
    840: Consumption
    850: Labor
    860: Human Resources
    863: Assignments
    870: Structure
    880: Peace
    888: Globalization
    890: Needs
    899: Conception
    900: Transparency
    910: Institutions
    911: Emergency Call
    930: Energy Distribution
    931: Only One Global Currency
    960: Blockchain
    962: Traceability
    970: Optimination
    990: Inspection
    995: Accountancy
    998: Regulation
    999: Implementation
    1000: Militancy
    1001: Nova Era
    1042: Drug Liberation
    1100: Liberation Army
    1160: Pacifism
    1312: Boycott
    1400: Unity
    1500: Benevolence
    1550: Charity
    1807: Black & Yellow
    2222: Paradox
    3000: Freedom
    3100: Triumph
    3311: To Revolt
    3330: We All Can Live In Abundance
    4000: Coexist
    4411: Riders of Justice
    5000: Glory
    5500: Greatness
    6999: Mystery
    7220: Unified Field Theory
    8000: Sustainability
    8999: Finitude
    9997: Discovery
    9998: Unknown
    9999: Universe
    10000: Existence
    . This is a numeric Matrix for communications purposes.
    . This can be used to convey meaning.
    Ex.: 6022: Good Reason to Resist.
    . Mathematical operators can be used to calculate meaning.
    Ex.: To liberate with a good force: 340. 300 + 40 = 340.
    . Logical operators to create statements.
    Ex.: ¬11: 13. If not Justice then Death.
    . Colors can also be used as information.
    - You can help build it.

    • @gschitz
      @gschitz Рік тому

      380: 38

    • @Carrymejane
      @Carrymejane 11 місяців тому

      How did u get these information? It's scary to see that everyone called 13 as death number even u that talking about quantum theory number ​@@gschitz

  • @lpaulse8342
    @lpaulse8342 Рік тому

    Wow, mind blown!! In much anticipation for Part 2

  • @stefano2069
    @stefano2069 2 роки тому

    QUESTION: Entanglement: One particle can be both positive or negative unless measured, and consequentially the 'twin' antiparticle will be the opposite unless we measure the first one... Well, is it not that the first particle 'is already' positive or negative, but we simply cannot know before measuring, and consequentially the twin 'is already' the opposite?
    I am totally ignorant of physics, except for youtube videos... But i never see these question explained... Do you have an answer? Thank you so much! 😊

  • @geoffrygeorgemathew3505
    @geoffrygeorgemathew3505 2 роки тому +1

    Now I understand that Quantum Programming is just a fancy way to perform Addition and Subtraction.

  • @gregoirepelegrin1966
    @gregoirepelegrin1966 2 роки тому

    17:16 Shouldn't it be 0 and 1 instead of 1 and 1? As they are correlated by a not gate?

  • @morkovija
    @morkovija 2 роки тому

    Time to embark on a journey of learning. I am all here for it

  • @LITTLEEXPERIMENTCHANNEL1
    @LITTLEEXPERIMENTCHANNEL1 2 роки тому +1

    Anologe is making a come back to assist in the digital possessing.

    • @orgaynigga8425
      @orgaynigga8425 2 роки тому

      it could make running computationally intensive machine learning algorithms a bit cheap💀

  • @francescoallegra5324
    @francescoallegra5324 2 роки тому

    Wow, really powerful. Only using state superposition and entanglement. That's fantastic. Anyway I have a degree in physics engineer and another in mechatronics engineering. I would love to work with this kind of things😍. Basically we could bypass P vs NP problem using quantum computer. Nice! If I understand well, since measuring will collapse the state, if we want to have "control"we should have a model in order to estimate the probability of a state in any point in the quantum circuit architecture and obviously know apriori the overall architecture that we are using for solve a specific problem. So we collapse the measure only in some strategical point ("end states") millons of time and make a probability profile in order to get the final answer. I think that I will study more about the quantum logic gate and all this stuff. Totally loved the control gate part. 🔝🔝🔝

  • @HighWycombe
    @HighWycombe 5 днів тому

    Great video. Looking forward to Part 2.

  • @theodoro89
    @theodoro89 2 роки тому +1

    I was a subscriber from your first video and I knew that channel was going to grow big. You are the only channel that I actively visit to rewatch some of your videos. They're so packed with information and it's worth to watch them multiple times. Wish I had the time to watch all your videos multiple times.... :)

    • @NewMind
      @NewMind  2 роки тому +1

      Thanks for the kind words. I appreciate you being there early on.

  • @Jet-Pack
    @Jet-Pack 2 роки тому +2

    Amazing presentation as always, mind blown.

    • @bovanshi6564
      @bovanshi6564 2 роки тому +3

      Mind blown.. So in other words, you need a new mind?

    • @Jet-Pack
      @Jet-Pack 2 роки тому +1

      @@bovanshi6564 Exactly!

    • @NewMind
      @NewMind  2 роки тому +2

      Well played my friend. 😆

  • @muzammalhussain4887
    @muzammalhussain4887 2 роки тому

    brilliant is my favorite plateform❤❤

  • @SuperMarioDiagnostics
    @SuperMarioDiagnostics 2 роки тому

    This channel should be called New Mind Blown

  • @JLo_24
    @JLo_24 2 роки тому

    Was always curious on how Programming quantum computers work, nice video

  •  Рік тому +1

    Hey, thank you for the awesome video. Where's the second part?

  • @georgeimmanuel4850
    @georgeimmanuel4850 Рік тому

    The use of Hadamard and CNOT gates to manipulate entanglement is related to the concept of "entanglement swapping." While this can create correlations between distant particles, it still doesn't allow for faster-than-light communication. The outcome of the entanglement is random and cannot be controlled to transmit specific information.

  • @giin97
    @giin97 2 роки тому +1

    My brain hurts 😂
    Great presentation, extremely professional. Thoroughly enjoyed it.

  • @siy2740
    @siy2740 2 роки тому

    I finally feel like I really understand what's going on with these things. That was great! It does sadden me, however. Since I very likely will never have the power of such a computer at my fingertips.

  • @liloheinrich8659
    @liloheinrich8659 Рік тому

    I predict that quantum computing and nuclear fusion will be the two biggest breakthroughs of the 21st century

  • @Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time
    @Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time 2 роки тому

    One way to think of this is that the wave particle duality of light and matter in the form of electrons is forming a blank canvas for us (atoms) to interact with; we have waves over a period of time and particles as an uncertain future unfolds. The mathematics of quantum mechanics represents the physics of time with classical physics represents processes over a ‘period of time’ as in Newton's differential equations. In this theory the mathematics of quantum mechanics represents geometry, the Planck Constant ħ=h/2π is linked to 2π circular geometry representing a two dimensional aspect of 4π spherical three-dimensional geometry. We have to square the wave function Ψ² representing the radius being squared r² because the process is relative to the two-dimensional spherical 4π surface. We then see 4π in Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π representing our probabilistic temporal three dimensions life. The charge of the electron e² and the speed of light c² are both squared for the same geometrical reason. We have this concept because the electromagnetic force forms a continuous exchange of energy forming what we experience as time. The spontaneous absorption and emission of light photon ∆E=hf energy is forming potential photon energy into the kinetic energy of electrons. Kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy is the energy of what is actually happening. An uncertain probabilistic future is continuously coming into existence with the exchange of photon energy.

  • @MunkeeMedia
    @MunkeeMedia 2 роки тому

    Can't wait till he puts out an English language version of this video! ☺☺

  • @ryancollicutt4890
    @ryancollicutt4890 2 роки тому

    Beautiful animations and illustrations lad. Can’t wait for part 2

  • @arnitgupta7388
    @arnitgupta7388 Рік тому +2

    when will you make a part-2 i would like to watch it and gather more information about it 😊😊😊😊😊😊

  • @Jet-Pack
    @Jet-Pack 2 роки тому +1

    17:18 shouldn't one of the output (1)s be a (0) ?

    • @aleksszukovskis2074
      @aleksszukovskis2074 2 роки тому

      I though so too.

    • @NewMind
      @NewMind  2 роки тому

      The bottom qubit starts at 0 and is only inverted if the control qubit is 1. Therefore if after the CNOT gate is measured at 1, the control qubit has to be a 1 to initiate the inversion.

  • @coderaiders-yt
    @coderaiders-yt Рік тому +1

    BRING ON PART II!!

  • @_Caose
    @_Caose 2 роки тому

    I need to watch this again to understand what is going on. Consider me saying this every time I re-watch.

  • @denisdelinger3265
    @denisdelinger3265 2 роки тому +1

    Great tutorial I'm now a certified quantum programmer

  • @georgf9279
    @georgf9279 2 роки тому

    My mind is in a superposition of thinking I understood a thing or two and completely blown to pieces.

  • @tnkr1184
    @tnkr1184 2 роки тому +1

    6:04 I think you’ve misinterpreted the equivalent time. Years/core isn’t the unit, it’s an equation. Say they factored the prime in 1 year using 2500 cores. The time equivalent for 1 core is 2500 years. I’d need to see the source to be sure so I could be wrong?

    • @NoNameAtAll2
      @NoNameAtAll2 2 роки тому

      it's not years/core
      it should be years*core
      just like kWh is power times time to give energy

  • @TheSwissGabber
    @TheSwissGabber 2 роки тому

    Thanks for this, I finally start to understand quantum computing. The stuff you usually hear does not help "q-bits are in a superposition" - well and how does this help exactly?
    Phases! As an electrical engineer an "of course!" moment.

  • @vishalmishra3046
    @vishalmishra3046 2 роки тому

    *Quantum circuit is a great model of quantum computing*
    A quantum register is simply a sequence of entangled qu-bits. A quantum circuit is simply a network of quantum logic gates. Together they make up a Quantum computer.
    Physically a qu-bit could be implemented using Electron spin (up vs. down) or photon polarization (horizontal vs. vertical).

  • @antonseoane1127
    @antonseoane1127 2 роки тому +1

    Great video! Could you post the bibliography to check the details and learn more about this topic?

  • @snk-js
    @snk-js 2 роки тому

    this is the best video i ever seen

  • @TheiPodMac1234
    @TheiPodMac1234 Рік тому

    Absolutely what I was looking for! Thank you!

  • @jfbaro2
    @jfbaro2 2 роки тому

    Thanks for sharing this. It's really accessible to ordinary people like me.

  • @apren9569
    @apren9569 2 роки тому +1

    Been waiting on this one

  • @soorajkadnor4642
    @soorajkadnor4642 2 роки тому

    Can't wait to watch the next video. 😤😤😤✌

  • @bhavyarai4218
    @bhavyarai4218 2 роки тому

    Wow...I liked the video because I couldn't understand any of these😉. Some of it sounded like 'Infinite probability drive ' to me. I am fascinated. ...Thank you for posting this...I think I am going to try better to understand this.

  • @workspilot.
    @workspilot. 2 роки тому

    Can't wait for part two!

  • @sushrutwarekar9507
    @sushrutwarekar9507 11 місяців тому +1

    Is part 2 posted? I can’t find it anywhere

  • @j.m.b.7449
    @j.m.b.7449 2 роки тому +1

    Thank you so much! I've tryed to understand the gates so many times, but this sums it up for me to understand it enough with the basic knowledge I've been accumulating about quantum physics!

  • @mionee_m
    @mionee_m 2 роки тому

    Golden presentation of many things.

  • @rasmusmadsen983
    @rasmusmadsen983 2 роки тому

    The visual are banging hot and the topic is a banger too

  • @Metaldetectiontubeworldwide
    @Metaldetectiontubeworldwide 2 роки тому +1

    Wow that Hademar gate , lets me think " ..beam me up Scotty"..lol
    Grtz from the netherlands
    Johny geerts

  • @samistube
    @samistube 2 роки тому

    Amazing video! Br, sci/tech videoholic. Can not wait for next next episode! Best visuals ever, you r a wizard!