More of my philosophy about quantum computers and more of my thoughts..

[Amine Moulay Ramdane]

Hello,



More of my philosophy about quantum computers and more of my thoughts..

I am a white arab from Morocco, and i think i am smart since i have also
invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms..


"Huge announcements in Quantum Computer Technology have been recently made and there is a clear and active path to 4000 by 2025 and 16000+ qubits by 2027. 70 error-mitigated qubits with over 50 step layers of algorithmic capability is believed to be the point where quantum computers will surpass exaflop supercomputers for cracking big problems.

IBM is targeting over 100 error-corrected qubits with the ability to handle over 100 step layers of algorithmic capacity by the end of 2024."

Read more here:

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2022/11/dawning-of-the-quantum-computer-age.html


"Quantum computers could enable drastic progression in drug discovery and development, ultimately giving scientists the ability to solve problems that are currently intractable. With their extremely high processing power, these machines will be able to simultaneously review multiple molecules, proteins and chemicals through quantum simulation — something currently unachievable with a standard computer — allowing drug options to be developed faster and more effectively than today.

Scientists, such as those at Swiss pharmaceutical company, Roche, hope that quantum simulations will speed up the development of drugs and vaccines to protect against the likes of Covid-19, influenza, cancer and even potentially find a cure for Alzheimer’s. What’s more, quantum simulations could also be able to replace laboratory experiments, reduce the cost of research and even minimize the need for human and animal testing."


Four Ways Quantum Computing Could Change The World

Read more here:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2021/07/30/four-ways-quantum-computing-could-change-the-world/?sh=fc67b144602a

Also you can read my new writing about new interesting medical treatments and drugs and about antibiotic resistance here:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/vChmXT_pXUI

The European Commission is consolidating four quantum computing projects based on Rydberg atom technology to create a single platform

Pasqal: Building a quantum computing leader in Europe
€25m for 1000 qubit quantum computer by 2023

Read more here:

https://www.eenewseurope.com/en/europe-consolidates-its-rydberg-quantum-computer-projects/?fbclid=IwAR0pkfrjOruTuWmHaDHlc4lIm_j1UgIiMLVbovQbjwfLqdaNPn3JEU1pTyo


Quantum computers vastly outperform supercomputers when it comes to energy efficiency

https://physicsworld.com/a/quantum-computers-vastly-outperform-supercomputers-when-it-comes-to-energy-efficiency/


And more of my philosophy about quantum computers..

IBM says thousands of quantum computers will be on sale by 2025, with 4,000 qubits, It represents a leap from its current hardware of 127 qubits

Read more here:

https://hpc-developpez-com.translate.goog/actu/333533/IBM-affirme-que-des-milliers-d-ordinateurs-quantiques-seront-en-vente-d-ici-2025-avec-4-000-qubits-il-represente-un-bond-par-rapport-a-son-materiel-actuel-de-127-qubits/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en

I think i am smart, and as you have just noticed, i have just talked about quantum computers, read my below thoughts about it, and now we have to also ask how Machine Learning gets a quantum speedup, and here is an interesting article about it so that you understand that quantum computers are also very interesting to have:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/ai-gets-a-quantum-computing-speedup-20220204/

And IBM is releasing the roadmap that we think will take us from the noisy, small-scale quantum computers of today to the million-plus qubit quantum computers of the future. And IBM team is developing a suite of scalable, increasingly larger and better processors, with a 1,000-plus qubit device, called IBM Quantum Condor, targeted for the end of 2023,
you can read about it on the following interesting article:

https://research.ibm.com/blog/ibm-quantum-roadmap

More of my philosophy about quantum computers and about CPUs and more..

For a parallel computer, we need to have one billion different processors. In a quantum computer, a single register can perform a billion computations since a qubit of a register of a quantum computer can be both in two states 1 and 0, this is known as quantum parallelism.

And US plans exascale supercomputers 5-10x more powerful than Frontier
and targets 100 exaflops after 2030, and China is believed to have secretly set up the world's first exascale supercomputer in 2021, soon following it up with a second system. As many as 10 exascale supercomputers are thought to be in development in the country.

Read more here:

https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/us-plans-exascale-supercomputers-5-10x-more-powerful-than-frontier/


Exascale supercomputers will also allow to construct an accurate map
of the brain that allows to "reverse" engineer or understand the brain,
read the following so that to notice it:

“If we don’t improve today’s technology, the compute time for a whole
mouse brain would be something like 1,000,000 days of work on current
supercomputers. Using all of Aurora 2 exaFLOPS supercomputer, if everything worked beautifully, it could still take 1,000 days.” Nicola Ferrier, Argonne senior computer scientist

Read more here so that to understand:

https://www.anl.gov/article/preparing-for-exascale-argonnes-aurora-supercomputer-to-drive-brain-map-construction

Also Exascale supercomputers will allow researchers to tackle problems
which were impossible to simulate using the previous generation of
machines, due to the massive amounts of data and calculations involved.

Small modular nuclear reactor (SMR) design, wind farm optimization and
cancer drug discovery are just a few of the applications that are
priorities of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Exascale Computing
Project. The outcomes of this project will have a broad impact and
promise to fundamentally change society, both in the U.S. and abroad.

Read more here:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/opinion-exascale-computing-1.5382505

Also the goal of delivering safe, abundant, cheap energy from fusion is
just one of many challenges in which exascale computing’s power may
prove decisive. That’s the hope and expectation. Also to know more about
the other benefits of using Exascale computing power, read more here:

https://www.hpcwire.com/2019/05/07/ten-great-reasons-among-many-more-to-build-the-1-5-exaflops-frontier/


More of my thoughts about technology and about Apple Silicon M1 Emulating x86 and more of my thoughts..

I am a white arab, and i think i am smart since i have also
invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms..


I have just looked at the following articles about Rosetta 2 and the benchmarks of Apple Silicon M1 Emulating x86:

https://www.computerworld.com/article/3597949/everything-you-need-to-know-about-rosetta-2-on-apple-silicon-macs.html

and read also here:

https://www.macrumors.com/2020/11/15/m1-chip-emulating-x86-benchmark/

But i think that the problem with Apple Silicon M1 and the next Apple Silicon M2 is that Rosetta 2 only lets you run x86–64 macOS apps. That would be apps that were built for macOS (not Windows) and aren't 32-bit. The macOS restriction eliminates huge numbers of Windows apps, and 64-bit restriction eliminates even more.

Also read the following:

Apple says new M2 chip won’t beat Intel’s finest

Read more here:

https://www.pcworld.com/article/782139/apple-m2-chip-wont-beat-intels-finest.html


And here is what i am saying on my following thoughts about technology about Arm Vs. X86:

More of my philosophy about the Apple Silicon and about Arm Vs. X86 and more of my thoughts..

I invite you to read carefully the following interesting article so
that to understand more:

Overhyped Apple Silicon: Arm Vs. X86 Is Irrelevant

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4447703-overhyped-apple-silicon-arm-vs-x86-is-irrelevant


More of my philosophy about code compression of RISC-V and ARM and more of my thoughts..

I think i am highly smart, and i have just read the following paper
that says that RISC-V Compressed programs are 25% smaller than RISC-V programs, fetch 25% fewer instruction bits than RISC-V programs, and incur fewer instruction cache misses. Its code size is competitive with other compressed RISCs. RVC is expected to improve the performance and energy per operation of RISC-V.

Read more here to notice it:

https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~krste/papers/waterman-ms.pdf


So i think RVC has the same compression as ARM Thumb-2, so i think
that i was correct in my previous thoughts , read them below,
so i think we have now to look if the x86 or x64 are still more cache friendly even with Thumb-2 compression or RVC.

More of my philosophy of who will be the winner, x86 or x64 or ARM and more of my thoughts..


I think i am highly smart, and i think that since x86 or x64 has complex instructions and ARM has simple instructions, so i think that x86 or x64 is more cache friendly, but ARM has wanted to solve the problem by compressing the code by using Thumb-2 that compresses the code, so i think Thumb-2 compresses the size of the code by around 25%, so i think
we have to look if the x86 or x64 are still more cache friendly even with Thumb-2 compression, and i think that x86 or x64 will still optimize more the power or energy efficiency, so i think that there remains that since x86 or x64 has other big advantages, like the advantage that i am talking about below, so i think the x86 or x64 will be still successful big players in the future, so i think it will be the "tendency". So i think that x86 and x64 will be good for a long time to make money in business, and they will be good for business for USA that make the AMD or Intel CPUs.


More of my philosophy about x86 or x64 and ARM architectures and more of my thoughts..

I think i am highly smart, and i think that x86 or x64 architectures
has another big advantage over ARM architecture, and it is the following:


"The Bright Parts of x86

Backward Compatibility

Compatibility is a two-edged sword. One reason that ARM does better in low-power contexts is that its simpler decoder doesn't have to be compatible with large accumulations of legacy cruft. The downside is that ARM operating systems need to be modified for every new chip version.

In contrast, the latest 64-bit chips from AMD and Intel are still able to boot PC DOS, the 16-bit operating system that came with the original IBM PC. Other hardware in the system might not be supported, but the CPUs have retained backward compatibility with every version since 1978.

Many of the bad things about x86 are due to this backward compatibility, but it's worth remembering the benefit that we've had as a result: New PCs have always been able to run old software."

Read more here on the following web link so that to notice it:

https://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1676714&seqNum=6


So i think that you can not compare x86 or x64 to ARM, since it is
not just a power efficiency comparison, like some are doing it by comparing
the Apple M1 Pro ARM CPU to x86 or x64 CPUs, it is why i think that x86 or x64 architectures will be here for a long time, so i think that they will be good for a long time to make money in business, and they are a good business for USA that make the AMD or Intel CPUs.

More of my philosophy about weak memory model and ARM and more of my thoughts..


I think ARM hardware memory model is not good, since it is a
weak memory model, so ARM has to provide us with a TSO memory
model that is compatible with x86 TSO memory model, and read what Kent Dickey is saying about it in my following writing:


ProValid, LLC was formed in 2003 to provide hardware design and verification consulting services.

Kent Dickey, founder and President, has had 20 years experience in hardware design and verification. Kent worked at Hewlett-Packard and Intel Corporation, leading teams in ASIC chip design and pre-silicon and post-silicon hardware verification. He architected bus interface chips for high-end servers at both companies. Kent has received more than 10 patents for innovative work in both design and verification.

Read more here about him:

https://www.provalid.com/about/about.html


And read the following thoughts of Kent Dickey about the weak memory model such as of ARM:

"First, the academic literature on ordering models is terrible. My eyes
glaze over and it's just so boring.

I'm going to guess "niev" means naive. I find that surprising since x86
is basically TSO. TSO is a good idea. I think weakly ordered CPUs are a
bad idea.

TSO is just a handy name for the Sparc and x86 effective ordering for
writeback cacheable memory: loads are ordered, and stores are buffered and will complete in order but drain separately from the main CPU pipeline. TSO can allow loads to hit stores in the buffer and see the new value, this doesn't really matter for general ordering purposes.

TSO lets you write basic producer/consumer code with no barriers. In fact, about the only type of code that doesn't just work with no barriers on TSO is Lamport's Bakery Algorithm since it relies on "if I write a location and read it back and it's still there, other CPUs must see that value as well", which isn't true for TSO.

Lock free programming "just works" with TSO or stronger ordering guarantees, and it's extremely difficult to automate putting in barriers for complex algorithms for weakly ordered systems. So code for weakly ordered systems tend to either toss in lots of barriers, or use explicit locks (with barriers). And extremely weakly ordered systems are very hard to reason about, and especially hard to program since many implementations are not as weakly ordered as the specification says they could be, so just running your code and having it work is insufficient. Alpha was terrible in this regard, and I'm glad it's silliness died with it.

HP PA-RISC was documented as weakly ordered, but all implementations
guaranteed full system sequential consistency (and it was tested in and
enforced, but not including things like cache flushing, which did need
barriers). No one wanted to risk breaking software from the original in-order fully sequential machines that might have relied on it. It wasn't really a performance issue, especially once OoO was added.

Weakly ordered CPUs are a bad idea in much the same way in-order VLIW is a bad idea. Certain niche applications might work out fine, but not for a general purpose CPU. It's better to throw some hardware at making TSO perform well, and keep the software simple and easy to get right.

Kent"


Read the rest on the following web link:

https://groups.google.com/g/comp.arch/c/fSIpGiBhUj0


And you can read much more of my thoughts about technology in the following web links:


https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/MosH5fY4g_Y

And here:

https://groups.google.com/g/soc.culture.usa/c/N_UxX3OECX4







Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.