Quote from: Hell-raiser on September 04, 2018, 07:26:33 AM

I'm not sure what to make of that. As I see it, you are just suggesting to use calculations based not on just 2 digits (binary calculations) but on a higher base (4, 8, ...). Honestly, I don't see any difference here, as whatever base you use, you can always simplify it to the binary notation without losing anything. Are you certain that your understanding of quantum computing is correct? Personally, I always thought it has more to do with using some physical phenomena (actually, quantum phenomena) to make calculations and get relevant results. In other words, you do not calculate in the usual way like 2+2 but use some quantum effects which kind of do calculations for you, and then you just write down the result.

Briefly, it is very different from using your fingers to calculate a sum, which is what "normal" computing comes down to (no matter what base you use).

maybe i oversimplified it for too simple an explanation.. kinda hard to ELI-5

and your right you can simplyfy the END RESULT base down. thats why a one qubit can be converted to 2bits.
thats IF you were to use quantum for a one directional binary problem.

hense why doing a hex/bin SHA problem it requires 4bits per hex but only 2qubits per hex. so "quantum" is only 2x more efficient at doing binary/hex problems.

but a binary transistor is only ever a 2base. only ever has been a 2 base. so its never been a 4 or 8 base.

as for the "physical phenomena" inside a transistor. well that just stores a value. HOW its stores it is NOT important. its the transportation inbetween transistors. along the mainboard/wires. as that is still electric.

imagine binary as 1 direction (1dimensional) stay still or go forward
->[]->1
so 0 is do nothing and 1 is go forward

then qubits are 3 directions (3 dimensions) stay still or go forward or left or right
   2
   |
->[]->1
   |
   3
so now a 0 is still do nothing. a 1 could be go forward, 2 is go left 3 is go right

or they could decide to stay with one dimension but where
0 do nothing
1 switch on transistor
2 do nothing at second transistor
3 switch on 2nd transistor
(which takes 1qubit to get to tell the second transistor, or 2 bits to achieve same result)
but thats just a waste of possible utility...

they are still trying to standardise how the 'switch' of a transister moves onto the next. because it needs standardisation (protocol) so that they can then mass produce consumer PC's that will then know what to do when being given quantum code

so they have the hardware but still deciding what to do with it.
at the moment they are not going for the one dimension where 3= switch on 2nd transistor. they are instead playing with go left or right (3 dimension)

sticking with 1 dimension where doing binary problems is limited.. just to be able to do 4base and convert it down to 2 base is a waste..
but multi option, dimension, choice, direction, vector problems can be easily handled which binary systems couldnt really handle opens up a whole new minefield of oppertunity. rather than just 2x transistor efficiency.

imagine it like this
for century you had one bit controling
-[]-
now you can adjust voltage of one qubit to either control
-[]-[] (limited utility as binary could do same with 2bits)
or
/[]
-[]Ξ-[] (imagine the posibilities)
\[]