31–40 of 71 posts
No one wants a quantum gap!
To me this reads a lot like “quantum computer faster than a classical computer at ‘simulating’ itself”. Constructing a physical experiment where it would take a classical computer 10000+ years to simulate the outcome is trivial. I don’t see how this is very different.
To me this reads a lot like “quantum computer faster than a classical computer at ‘simulating’ itself”. Constructing a physical experiment where it would take a classical computer 10000+ years to simulate the outcome is trivial. I don’t see how this is very different.
However, you are right that the only thing this device does is "perform something difficult to simulate". The technology still needs a few more generations before that "something" is useful. Given the consistent progress since 1995, I am fairly optimistic that within 10 years we can do that.
What's the chance someone will come along with a classical analog that matches/beats this result? I remember seeing claims of quantum supremacy in the past and then clever people invented new classical algorithms that performed just as well.
However, on the extreme end, proving that quantum and classical computers are equivalent, would be probably more surprising than proving P=NP.
I'm like 99% sure Google said "what's the most contrived workload that technically counts as quantum supremacy" and went from there... That being said, we certainly live in interesting times.
“Supremacy” is a descriptor various parts of government use when they need funding. The implication is that achieving “supremacy” with some hot area of global security requires spending $X, and if $X _aren’t_ spent, then we will be behind. No one wants a quantum gap!
Congrats to the team on great work. Looking forward to more to come.
What's the chance someone will come along with a classical analog that matches/beats this result? I remember seeing claims of quantum supremacy in the past and then clever people invented new classical algorithms that performed just as well.
To me this reads a lot like “quantum computer faster than a classical computer at ‘simulating’ itself”. Constructing a physical experiment where it would take a classical computer 10000+ years to simulate the outcome is trivial. I don’t see how this is very different.
There is a slight difference, that really matters to theoretical computer scientists (as in complexity theory) and physicists working on quantum computing: The challenge is to construct a physical experiment that consists of only 50ish "elementary" and "programmable" building blocks that is infeasible to simulate on a classical computer. This "universality" and small number of elements is what is exciting and what ma…