My 5-minute quantum computing talk at the White House • Hacker News Board

Re: My 5-minute quantum computing talk at the White House

#11

Post by krastanov » Wed, Oct 26, 2016, 5:09 PM UTC

hnal943 wrote: post #9

krastanov wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you elaborate on why you dislike this quote? Maybe there is some context missing: for a lot of researchers quantum computing is interesting because of how its existence informs fundamental questions in physics and math like the Church-Turing thesis. For those people the code breaking application are indeed pretty boring, just like internal combustion engines can be boring for people working on statistical physi…

Well, it's not really an application, is it? It seems like a fancy way of saying, "the stuff I'm working on isn't good for anything - it's just to satisfy my intellectual curiosity". Which is fine as far as it goes, but not exactly inspiring.

I would say for me it is the applications that are boring, not the fundamentals behind them.

For a lot of people fundamental laws of nature are deeply inspiring, tangentially because of a belief that those fundamental laws and their deeper understanding bear fruit beyond our wildest imagination. Compared to this it is easy to see how today's applications are just boring.

Sure, today's technology was yesterday's research project, but you can not fault people for being excited more about current research than about applications of yesterday's research.

PS: However I agree that the quoted statement was poorly phrased to convey this sentiment. From what I know about the speaker I am fairly confident that this is what he was trying to say.

Re: My 5-minute quantum computing talk at the White House

#12

Post by artimaeis » Wed, Oct 26, 2016, 5:18 PM UTC

hnal943 wrote: post #9

krastanov wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you elaborate on why you dislike this quote? Maybe there is some context missing: for a lot of researchers quantum computing is interesting because of how its existence informs fundamental questions in physics and math like the Church-Turing thesis. For those people the code breaking application are indeed pretty boring, just like internal combustion engines can be boring for people working on statistical physi…

Well, it's not really an application, is it? It seems like a fancy way of saying, "the stuff I'm working on isn't good for anything - it's just to satisfy my intellectual curiosity". Which is fine as far as it goes, but not exactly inspiring.

Maybe we're reading it differently, but it seems to me that he's admitting there are practical applications, but their importance is unclear if we can't first demonstrate that the QC approach is superior.

Re: My 5-minute quantum computing talk at the White House

#13

Post by weinzierl » Wed, Oct 26, 2016, 7:08 PM UTC

krastanov wrote: post #8

asendra wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quantum PC master race? /s

"Quantum supremacy" experiments are those that can show that quantum computing can indeed do things that classical computers can not, without having to build an entire quantum computer. They are important in practice because they are "cheap" checks on whether our premises are wrong and important in theory because they show interesting new ways to think about the problems we want to solve.

> "Quantum supremacy" experiments are those that can show that quantum computing can indeed do things that classical computers can not [...]

Putting it the way you did is very misleading for folks not familiar with the difference between complexity and computability.

Quantum computing is not about computability, because it is well agreed that a quantum computer can solve exactly all problems a classical computer can and vice versa (Church–Turing thesis).

What is not agreed on is if there are problems that a quantum computer can solve more efficiently than a classical computer (where more efficiently means either in time or space and has a strict mathematical definition).

Now, put simply, if someone could come up with a computer that would solve a task faster than the theoretical limit of a classical computer that would put an end to the discussion once and for all. This is what Quantum Supremacy means in the article, or in the words of Scott Aaronson:

> But what quantum supremacy means to me, is demonstrating a quantum speedup for some task as confidently as possible.

Re: My 5-minute quantum computing talk at the White House

#14

Post by jobu » Wed, Oct 26, 2016, 7:14 PM UTC

smaddox wrote: post #2

"I like to say that for me, the #1 application of quantum computing—more than codebreaking, machine learning, or even quantum simulation—is just disproving the people who say quantum computing is impossible! So, quantum supremacy targets that application." \facepalm

If you continue reading, he's making an argument that comes together at the end:

"After this scientific milestone is achieved, I predict that the whole discussion of commercial applications of quantum computing will shift to a new plane, much like the Manhattan Project shifted to a new plane after Fermi built his pile under the Chicago stadium in 1942. In other words: at this point, the most “applied” thing to do might be to set applications aside temporarily, and just achieve this quantum supremacy milestone—i.e., build the quantum computing Fermi pile—and thereby show the world that quantum computing speedups are a reality."

He's saying we need to do some purely scientific experiments to demonstrate the fundamentals of quantum computing before we start trying to use it for codebreaking or AI.

Re: My 5-minute quantum computing talk at the White House

#15

Post by weinzierl » Wed, Oct 26, 2016, 8:02 PM UTC

> I like to say that a fast classical factoring algorithm might collapse the world’s electronic commerce, but as far as we know, it wouldn’t collapse the polynomial hierarchy!

This is my favourite quote because it sums up pretty nicely the most common misconceptions people have about factorization, crypto and quantum computing. Of course the first part is hyperbole, but still put very nicely.