>>12455120Church-Turing is not a proof. It's more or less a definition of a classical algorithm. There's a lot of evidence to show that the definition is robust enough to be mathematically general (basically a lot of evidence from descriptive set theory and relativization tells us we've stumbled on a "good" definition but like all good definitions, it's just the start of a subject), but quantum information tells us it may not be exactly as universal as we thought.
>>12455121No, this is actually wrong, given no-go theorems. Classical and quantum computing are two completely different paradigms that solve classes of problems differently. It isn't "computing the same things but faster" and you're dumb if you think this is why people give a shit about quantum, particularly on the theoretical CS side.
In particular, unitary transformations in quantum give us a lot of computing power that's not realizable classically, such as QNOT
