google shouldn't call anything wave :)
RIP Google Wave
Google Announced their D-Wave 2X Quantum Computer Works (2015)
11–20 of 23 posts
Re: Google Announced their D-Wave 2X Quantum Computer Works (2015)
#12google shouldn't call anything wave :)
I liked Google Wave... at least better than Google+
Re: Google Announced their D-Wave 2X Quantum Computer Works (2015)
#13Re: Google Announced their D-Wave 2X Quantum Computer Works (2015)
#14I thought it wasn't considered a quantum speedup if you're talking about a constant factor. Otherwise, how are you going to jump across complexity classes?
Re: Google Announced their D-Wave 2X Quantum Computer Works (2015)
#15google shouldn't call anything wave :)
The name has nothing to do with Google. D-Wave Systems is the name of the company that developed and manufactured the computer.
Re: Google Announced their D-Wave 2X Quantum Computer Works (2015)
#16As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't work until Scott Aaronson says it works. EDIT: My comment was kind of snarky and curt without much info; I need to be better about that. I did read Scott's post when it was published, and the consensus I got from it is that D-Wave's device achieves a constant-factor speedup, not a quantum one. I just think, with that being generally accepted by all parties now, it's pretty disingen…
I think Aaronson's Q&A w/ MIT News is the most accessible explanation of why this isn't an "it works!" moment. It's a complex, nuanced argument so it's easier to just read than try to summarize here [1]
I think basically if you grasp why Selby's algorithm is able to beat D-Wave, you'll understand why D-Wave isn't a useful quantum computer, whatever terminology you want to use to describe it.
N.B. Even Aaronson admits D-Wave may have useful technology[2], it's just that the present "dirty qbit" approach doesn't give you a machine useful for anything more than basic science research, which is not at all how D-Wave have hyped it.
[1] http://news.mit.edu/2015/3q-scott-aaronson-google-quantum-co...
[2] http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2555#comment-967324
Re: Google Announced their D-Wave 2X Quantum Computer Works (2015)
#17google shouldn't call anything wave :)
RIP Google Wave
It lives on in Apache!
Re: Google Announced their D-Wave 2X Quantum Computer Works (2015)
#18I got about halfway through the article wondering why the NSA wanted to talk about their quantum computer so much, then realized it was NASA.
Re: Google Announced their D-Wave 2X Quantum Computer Works (2015)
#19> We note that there exist heuristic classical algorithms that can solve most instances of Chimera structured problems in a timescale comparable to the D-Wave 2X. However, we believe that such solvers will become ineffective for the next generation of annealers currently being designed. From the abstract.
I was wondering if these exist. My last counter of D-Wave is they could be using a good algorithm with specialized ASIC's or regular HPC hardware in a cluster. As in, they're certainly accelerating things but making up the quantum part. That possibility has to be eliminated.
That there's classical algorithms that might get a similar speedup, esp if on custom hardware, validates my prior concern.
Re: Google Announced their D-Wave 2X Quantum Computer Works (2015)
#20talk about changing goal posts and pivoting, anything to save face about rushing success.
quantum everything is obviously the future of technology, but it is a long long path.
i get more excited about fundmanetal quantum research and research on new methods of testing quantum states.
people claiming to have full working computers of any value, if they even do work-------------are just blowing smoke and mirrors like elizabeth holmes from theranos. nearly criminal behavior , alleging things are simply what they aren't in order to get money.
there is an epidemic of hack science and engineering occuring to secure and suck in scarce funds. and where-ever there is military related big money the likelihood of fraud is even bigger.
read the book about the hafnium bomb and you will understand why the military investors are frequently so easy to scam---a two pronged version of greed and desire to have the unstoppable weapons.
paradoxically enough , if more pre-investigation was done, they'd have more money to spend on real R&D. i guess economists would just call this a massive case of malinvestment.