Blogalog 1.0.1

So, Rod says that a full physical simulation of a QC architecture is
prohibitively large. That is so not where I am coming from.

The primary strength of computer science is abstraction.
The primary tool of abstraction is modularity.
The width of a blogspot window is too narrow for my tastes, I hate it's wrapping decisions and this sentence should illustrate that.

There are two basic responses here, one is that the simulation
need only represent the 'useful' states of a Qubit,
not it's full domain. The other is that the serial simulation
of Qubits requires at worst a data-flow dependency,
and at best an output only state-capture.

Now comes the part where Rod tells me how much I
don't get it, and not how I don't get it. But that's
okay. It's more important to start reaching
a common mental state (and concomitant lexicon
and grammar) than it is to be right.

In my next non-reactive entry, I'll challenge
Rods assertion that QC is best served as
a co-processor (which we actually questioned
in Blogalog 1.0).

Now, a word from the CG Front:
While Rod's dilemma of how to constrain if camera to a POV
that keeps all his QuBits, their state, and captions viewable in frame,
I ask the next cinematic question:

What is a fly-through of a Qubit, and can it be used to visually
express the superpositional quandary that lies at the heart
of transitioning to a new way of thinking about harnessing
quantum behaviour for computing applications.