4
$\begingroup$

It is about this question.

Unfortunately, the 5 VtC happened, and the single clear clarification request was fulfilled.

Any idea, what else to do?


Update

  • The question is now reopened, there are multiple "excellent question" reaction, and multiple useful answers.
  • The close/down voters still didn't share the reason of their close/down votes, except @Riker.
  • Exactly zero improvement advice arrived.
  • There are multiple newer upvotes to the question.

It seems, time will solve this problem, however, given that the question was edited after most downvotes, a vote correction if still possible.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Extremely quickly is a bit of an overstatment. I voted ot close your question pretty quick after I saw it, but it took almost an hour for that to happen. That's not very quick for anything other than a huge site like SO. $\endgroup$ – Riker Mar 12 '18 at 19:03
  • $\begingroup$ In addition, it was not fulfilled. As I said, I still don't understand your question. $\endgroup$ – Riker Mar 12 '18 at 19:03
  • $\begingroup$ @Riker You said two problems: 1) "not easily understable" 2) uses offtopic terminology. I fixed (2). I tried to fix also (1), but it was not a very detailed problem. What exactly is not easily understable in the question? $\endgroup$ – peterh says reinstate Monica Mar 12 '18 at 19:06
3
$\begingroup$

I totally agree with the OP here. I admit that I had to read the question twice before I got it. Mainly because it's an unusual one. But also because it was not as clear as other questions. Contentwise it's one of the best questions here. Probably like "worth doing a PhD on this topic". Seriously.
Regarding your question on how to improve it: I hope that in the process of finding some answers (there's already a good start there), you can clarify the question. Sometimes there is some kind of dialog between the answers and the question, so that's what I'm hoping for.
If the downvoters do not comment, then this is not constructive and you shouldn't worry to much about it.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

To quote my comment there:

I fail to see how this relates to quantum computing. I think you're just asking about supercomputers in general, which quantum computers may happen to solve. In my mnd, that's analogous to asking about how electricity works on SO.

Your question seems to be about solving complicated problems (i.e. many-body problems) using quantum computers, with the emphasis on the quantum bit being helpful for that problem. However, I'm not sure why you think that personally. I don't see how quantum computers relate to solving hard problems, and you failed to provide that explanation.

My intuitive reasoning behind that, using quantum computers we can essentially simulate a quantum many-body system, making the theoretical calculation in essence to an experiment.

Why can't a Really Really Good Supercomputer™ that doesn't use QM do this? Quantum computers themselves aren't the genius solve-all that you seem to be treating them as. This question doesn't really rely on quantum computers to solve your problem, and it's not about quantum computers themselves, so IMO it's off-topic.

I would have voted to close as that in the beginning, if I actually understood your question. Since then, I can't retract my vote (and vote again) to change the aim of the vote, and I'm not planning on it.

P.S. if it took a meta post and a couple edits to get your question understood, and your question was closed "surprisingly quickly", you may want to revisit your question-writing practices.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ The essence of the question: "Is finding a many-body system for a given set of properties significantly harder than finding the properties of a given many-body system?" What is unclear in it? What is off-topic in it? $\endgroup$ – peterh says reinstate Monica Mar 12 '18 at 19:12
  • $\begingroup$ @peterh did you not just read my answer? I explained pretty clearly why I feel it's 1. off-topic (see paragraph 2), and 2. voted to close as unclear instead of off-topic (see paragraph 3). $\endgroup$ – Riker Mar 12 '18 at 19:12
  • $\begingroup$ Now I did. The question relates to quantum computers on a way, that the problem is practically unsolvable even in the "forward" direction with classical computing, and the "reverse" direction seems for me harder. $\endgroup$ – peterh says reinstate Monica Mar 12 '18 at 19:15
  • $\begingroup$ @peterh Sorry, but the majority seems to disagree. $\endgroup$ – Riker Mar 12 '18 at 19:16
  • $\begingroup$ But nobody says the reason. $\endgroup$ – peterh says reinstate Monica Mar 12 '18 at 19:16
  • $\begingroup$ The really-really good supercomputers can't solve this, because the complexity of the Schroedinger-equation grows exponentially with the degree of freedoms... $\endgroup$ – peterh says reinstate Monica Mar 12 '18 at 19:17
  • $\begingroup$ @peterh I literally just did. If you disagree with my reason, so be it. if you can find enough people to re-open your question, tha'ts cool. I'll still downvote and just call it good. $\endgroup$ – Riker Mar 12 '18 at 19:19
  • $\begingroup$ You are still the only one who at least shared their vote reason... $\endgroup$ – peterh says reinstate Monica Mar 12 '18 at 19:20

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .