The communication here is clear as mud. WHICH quantum systems? D-Wave? We know D-Wave is a joke!
P-computers can solve spin-glass problems faster than quantum systems
11–20 of 29 posts
Re: P-computers can solve spin-glass problems faster than quantum systems
#12I'm confused. Do p-computers have any complexity theoretic advantage over classical computers, similar to how quantum computers have such an advantage in some areas? Or are they just normal computers in the end?
Re: P-computers can solve spin-glass problems faster than quantum systems
#13Good sign that Extropic may be on the right path here
Just remains to be seen whether they can maintain capitalization long enough to find PMF
Re: P-computers can solve spin-glass problems faster than quantum systems
#14P is stored in the computer
Re: P-computers can solve spin-glass problems faster than quantum systems
#15I'm confused. Do p-computers have any complexity theoretic advantage over classical computers, similar to how quantum computers have such an advantage in some areas? Or are they just normal computers in the end?
P-computers is just another name for legume-computers, which are great for bean-counting, and are deployed in pods.
Re: P-computers can solve spin-glass problems faster than quantum systems
#16I'm confused. Do p-computers have any complexity theoretic advantage over classical computers, similar to how quantum computers have such an advantage in some areas? Or are they just normal computers in the end?
The answer should be no right? I think BPP is expected to be equal to P and BQP to be not equal to P.
Re: P-computers can solve spin-glass problems faster than quantum systems
#17Very interesting article. This makes me wonder: Would it be possible to implement an equivalent to Shor's algorithm on a p-computer. Maybe the quantumness isn't necessary at all
The power of quantum computing is constructing the solution to a problem out of an interference pattern. Classical probabilities don’t interfere, but quantum probabilities do. Loosely, quantum probabilities can be constructed to cancel, since their amplitudes can be negative.
Shor’s algorithm works on the quantum Fourier transform. The quantum Fourier transform works because you can pick a frequency out of a signal using a “test wave.” The test wave can select out the amplitude of interest because the information of the test wave constructively interferes, whereas every other frequency cancels. This is the interference effect that can only happen with complex/negative probability amplitudes.
Re: P-computers can solve spin-glass problems faster than quantum systems
#18I'm having a hard time understanding this article.
First of all, a quantum annealer is not a universal quantum computer, just to elucidate the title.
Then, it seems like they are comparing a simulation of p-computers to a physical realization of a quantum annealer (likely D-wave, but not named outright for some reason). If this is true, it doesn't seem like a very relevant comparison, because D-wave systems actually exist, while their p-computer sounds like it is just a design. But I may have misunderstood, because at times they make it sound like the p-computer actually exists.
Also, they talk about how p-computers can be scaled up with TSMC semiconductor technology. From what I know, this is also true for semiconductor-based (universal) quantum computers.
Re: P-computers can solve spin-glass problems faster than quantum systems
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
A direct equivalent, no, as stated in the introduction. "Notably, while probabilistic computers can emulate quantum interference with polynomial resources, their convergence is in general believed to require exponential time [10]. This challenge is known as the signproblem in Monte Carlo algorithms [11]."
> A direct equivalent, no, as stated in the introduction ... of https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-64235-y
yes, this paper is the main subject of the article
Re: P-computers can solve spin-glass problems faster than quantum systems
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A direct equivalent, no, as stated in the introduction ... of https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-64235-y
yes, this paper is the main subject of the article
The article links two papers (text: "Two recent papers underscore that potential."):
- https://www.nature.com/articles/s41928-025-01439-6 (link text: "In one study")
- https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-64235-y (link text: "In the most recent paper")