Area 51 » Technology

It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form.

On the actual site, this would be consider a list question and closed as "too broad". Questions are generally expected to contain a specific problem statement that can be definitively resolved in the space of a post. This is more of a broad discussion and not a good fit for this style Q&A site. – Robert Cartaino Sep 8 '17 at 16:17

up vote 10 down vote

added by wythagoras Feb 20 '17 at 18:16

up vote 10 down vote

added by wythagoras Feb 20 '17 at 18:20

Bremermann's limit is a limit on the computational speed. – wythagoras Feb 20 '17 at 18:20

up vote 10 down vote

added by JeopardyTempest Feb 27 '17 at 15:46

up vote 10 down vote

added by EvgeniyZh Mar 16 '17 at 8:23

closed as not a real question by Robert Cartaino Oct 16 '17 at 14:13

It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form.

	You want to list them all? On the actual site, this would be closed as "too broad". Questions are generally expected to contain a specific problem statement that can be definitively resolved in the space of a post. This is more of a broad discussion and not a good fit for this style Q&A site. – Robert Cartaino Sep 8 '17 at 16:19
	This could be improved by adding a context. By adding the possible uses of the computing in context XYZ then that would narrow down the options without changing the question to a large degree. – Jake Symons Nov 11 '17 at 19:47
	The problem then is that it would be too localised - sure, the applications in either a 5 or 20 qubit system aren't anything major, but the applications of a 50 qubit system would be vastly different, which I hope they'll have in the cloud in a couple of years. Add more qubits and the answer changes yet again – Mithrandir24601 Dec 10 '17 at 14:53

up vote 10 down vote

added by lgeorget Mar 16 '17 at 16:33

up vote 10 down vote

added by snulty Mar 17 '17 at 2:31

up vote 10 down vote

added by heather Mar 22 '17 at 22:09

I'd say that this is too opinion based and too localised - would changing it to something along the lines of 'what are the biggest challenges that need to be overcome for [x] to go from [this stage] to [that stage]?' make any sense? – Mithrandir24601 Aug 1 '17 at 0:00

@Mithrandir24601 edit made. – heather Aug 1 '17 at 0:35

up vote 10 down vote

added by EvgeniyZh Apr 6 '17 at 8:26

up vote 10 down vote

added by 41041729 Apr 12 '17 at 14:02

up vote 10 down vote

added by 41041729 Apr 12 '17 at 14:04

up vote 10 down vote

added by 41041729 Apr 12 '17 at 14:08

closed as duplicate of Are Cryptographic hash functions quantum secure? How is quantum computer going to effect the modern Cryptographic primitives? by Robert Cartaino Oct 16 '17 at 14:12

This question covers exactly the same ground as another question in this proposal.

While this may not be closed as an "exact duplicate" on the actual site, for the purpose of evaluating the scope of this proposal, combining questions all asking, essentially, how quantum computing affects cryptography helps assure we have a sufficient breadth of subject matter to actually create this site. – Robert Cartaino Sep 8 '17 at 16:32

up vote 10 down vote

added by blalasaadri Apr 29 '17 at 0:01

closed as not a real question by Robert Cartaino Oct 12 '17 at 15:32

It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form.

This is a call to generate an unbounded list with somewhat vague criteria. On the actual site, this would be closed as "too broad". Questions are generally expected to contain a specific problem statement that can be definitively resolved in the space of a post. This is a generalized call for a broad conversation and not a good fit for this style Q&A site. – Robert Cartaino Sep 8 '17 at 16:16

up vote 10 down vote

added by blalasaadri Apr 29 '17 at 0:02

up vote 10 down vote

added by blalasaadri Apr 29 '17 at 0:07

up vote 10 down vote

added by blalasaadri Jun 4 '17 at 11:58

up vote 10 down vote

added by Helmar Jun 11 '17 at 10:36

up vote 10 down vote

added by Sherif F. Jun 22 '17 at 1:13

up vote 10 down vote

added by tuskiomi Jul 7 '17 at 18:22

up vote 10 down vote

added by tuskiomi Jul 7 '17 at 18:27

closed as duplicate of Are Cryptographic hash functions quantum secure? How is quantum computer going to effect the modern Cryptographic primitives? by Robert Cartaino Oct 16 '17 at 14:11

This question covers exactly the same ground as another question in this proposal.

@RobertCartaino Howso? I Think that there are suffecient child questions to be asked here. For example, there is not a single "What is Ohm's law?" Question on Electronics.SE that Nullifies all Power management questions. This is not more different than that. While there are questions with power management that contain redundant info about ohm's law on other questions, they're still not even close to off topic, nor are the bigger questions which ask about the topic as a whole. Closing this limits the attempt to see the bigger picture that this site provides as a whole, and stunts fundamentals. – tuskiomi Sep 8 '17 at 16:35

@tuskiomi You don't want to fill a proposal with a lot of "child questions". The purpose of the proposal process is to help define the scope. There were a lot of repetitive questions all asking, essentially, if/how QC will break encryption, so I picked a representative example to cover that space. Trying to keep them all open here despite my explanation does not strengthen the case for building this site. – Robert Cartaino Sep 8 '17 at 16:42

@RobertCartaino So you're saying that they'll likely be on topic if the beta launches, but it is not appropriate here, where we try to discern what IS on topic? – tuskiomi Sep 8 '17 at 16:45

Correct, although I wouldn't call them "inappropriate." More like repetitive or redundant where outlining the basic scope is the goal of this exercise. This is just a routine cleanup activity to help flesh out a stronger proposal moving forward. – Robert Cartaino Sep 8 '17 at 16:49

up vote 10 down vote

added by Itamar Green Jul 24 '17 at 16:45

up vote 10 down vote

added by asettouf Jul 25 '17 at 12:59

up vote 10 down vote

added by kenorb Jul 31 '17 at 22:32

up vote 10 down vote

added by heather Jul 31 '17 at 23:42

up vote 10 down vote

added by heather Aug 1 '17 at 15:17

up vote 10 down vote

added by DanTheMan Aug 10 '17 at 16:27

up vote 10 down vote

added by Chan Bae Aug 14 '17 at 18:04

up vote 10 down vote

added by ratchet freak Aug 16 '17 at 14:54

up vote 10 down vote

added by Henry WH Hack v3.0 Aug 23 '17 at 22:17

up vote 10 down vote

added by snulty Sep 11 '17 at 23:52

I was thinking of something along the lines of Nielsen and Chuang's chapter 7. Roughly something about two level systems that retain quantum effects, ability to create initial states, and implement operations etc. Seemed like a question that might be asked. – snulty Sep 11 '17 at 23:56