Actually the order does imply order, it’s the context that negates that implication. So yes, the order is inferred from the sentence but only if context is ignored.

Switching the sentence, “Death metal singers use the same techniques as bats to vocalise” implies they got their techniques from bats solely by the ordering of the words and this is made somewhat believable because it’s potentially true. Without context you’d be unable to infer from this ambiguous sentence wether it’s an objective statement about their vocalisation techniques or if they really learned it from bats. More context would be needed.

Worth noting that the implications of words/sentences are fairly subjective and especially ruined when argued about.

That’s so funny because IBM’s website says they are more powerful. Whatever you say then chief. Not sure where you’re getting that they’re being made for fancy counting.. all I read is that this tech is amazing at advanced simulation and complex calculations. Literally no one but you is saying that conventional computers are ‘better suited’ to what we use them for. Other than the fact that right now these huge machines only have a few hundred qbits of course.

The essential difference between bits and qbits is the ability to represent superpositions. That’s basically ‘same but way, way, waaaay more powerful’. I’d absolutely love to have a supercomputer in my pocket and I can certainly think of some use cases that involve technology that doesn’t exist right now.

The best use case I can come up with right now is an advanced physics game engine that simulates physical reality by processing interactions between quantum particles. This would definitely be done best by a quantum gpu. Why would you? Why wouldn’t you? Why wouldn’t you stream all that data from a supercomputer in the cloud? Same reason I build my own desktop instead.

It’s very strange to me that you think people wouldn’t 100% build and find uses for a train in their pocket if they could. History has certainly shown otherwise.

That wasn’t exactly a guess now was it?

I can think of a few and speculate from there. But I think it’s more valid to state:

The argument ‘what would you use it for’ is the exact same argument they made 20 years ago for why you’d need 32GBs of RAM in your pc. Well maybe 30 years ago, but exponential growth and all that.

You want a use case for mobile quantum computing power? Here:

One problem quantum computing presents is that its computing potential overrules all current encryption mechanisms right? If your beautiful centralised computing solution can easily decrypt any data stream encrypted by conventional means then you’ll probably need an equally advanced solution to encrypt your data.

Another: a mobile running a 20-year-in-the-future graphics/physics game engine to simulate an AR reality over 10G internet together with 40.000 other players using the 20 different cameras in your phone that observe x-rays throughout microwaves while streaming to your 4D headset.

I’m certain there are mathmaticians and IT scientists out there who can elaborate on why this is/isn’t a bs use case. My point is that if I can come up with a potential use case in seconds while I’m cooking diner, then it’s plain dumb to assume that TONS of people won’t come up with actual use cases in the coming 20 years.

It wouldn’t be better at the tasks I do with my phone now. What do you know about the tasks I’ll be doing with my phone 20 years from now?

Indeed we don’t. But based on the continuing exponential growth of humanity’s technological advancement it’s reasonable to assume that we’ll have some interesting use cases for mobile quantum computing two decades from now.

In the past 2 decades we went from basic Nokia to 5G LiDAR ARM smartphones.

Why do you think that?

That’s like asking 20 years ago “what use would you have for 32gb of RAM?”