6 ms·
Is 200 seconds not faster than 2.5 days?? I don't see the argument here
by ace_33 7y ago
Is 200 seconds not faster than 2.5 days??
I don't see the argument here
- sanxiyn 7y agoThe key claim is linear scaling. IBM: "The runtime of our simulation method scales approximately linearly with the circuit depth". That directly contradicts what Google wrote in the paper: "... algorithm becomes exponentially more computationally expensive with increasing circuit depth".
- altares 7y agoSupremacy does not mean simply faster. That is already proven. It means impossible to do on a classical computer.
- djhaskin987 7y agoI'm sure you mean infeasible. "Impossible" goes back to a problem's decidability. If a problem is undecidable, there's no way you're going to find its solution by switching computational models; classical computers can do anything a quantum computer can do, just "slower".
- akvadrako 7y agoNot if they use up all the energy in the visible universe or they need so much power they collapse and form a black hole. Real quantum computers should be able to do calculations that are that powerful, assuming we can prove the best classical algorithms are really exponential.
- ascii_only 7y agoIt is difference between with this quantum chip we can brake encryption that would take 100000 years in 30 minutes or it would take us 50 years.
- orbifold 7y agoThe quantum circuit based simulation actually has much worse accuracy. A classical computer can simulate the class of circuits they are proposing with linear increasing runtime (as opposed to exponential as Google claims) and _much_ higher accuracy according to IBM.