3 ms·

"When people talk about surface codes, they mean the broad class of error correction schemes which look a bit like the toric code. The toric code has a threshol

"When people talk about surface codes, they mean the broad class of error correction schemes which look a bit like the toric code. The toric code has a threshold value around 10% which is great! However it is literally a lattice of atoms (or other spin systems) embedded on a torus. Construction is difficult. It also doesn't scale. A toric code with a few dozen qubits works as well as one with a few hundred. In fact several no-go theorems show that any transitionally invariant lattice in less than four dimensions won't scale. My research is actually in getting around these theorems by throwing out the lattice idea entirely." I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, but it doesn't seem to be standard thought.

IIAOPSW 11y ago
When you lookup "surface code" the first thing that comes up is "toric code". Off hand there's the toric code, the 3d toric code, welded toric code, color codes, and the surface code itself (which is a lattice of "measure qubits" next to a lattice of "data qubits"). The basic idea on all of them is the same as Kitaev's original insight of topologically protected data. IMO its completely fair to lump these together as "surface codes". If you disagree with my choice of words then I'm happy to concede and rephrase. If something else I said doesn't sound kosher please by all means lmk.
- selimthegrim 11y ago
  No, he's correct. In addition I would add that passive error correction is taking leaps and bounds lately, making dephasing essentially a non issue in multi-qubit systems (scalability is yet to be fully manifested)
  - IIAOPSW 11y ago
    correct in what respect? I'm not trying to be rude here but it is unclear what exactly I'm being called out on. Do you disagree with my use of the word "surface codes" or do you disagree with the way I've lumped a bunch of QEC's together under one name? Or is the disagreement something else entirely. And yeah I'm aware of the advances in passive QEC. Exciting time to be alive!
    - selimthegrim 11y ago
      The he I meant was you, I'm not calling you out.

IIAOPSW 11y ago

When you lookup "surface code" the first thing that comes up is "toric code". Off hand there's the toric code, the 3d toric code, welded toric code, color codes, and the surface code itself (which is a lattice of "measure qubits" next to a lattice of "data qubits"). The basic idea on all of them is the same as Kitaev's original insight of topologically protected data. IMO its completely fair to lump these together as "surface codes". If you disagree with my choice of words then I'm happy to concede and rephrase. If something else I said doesn't sound kosher please by all means lmk.

selimthegrim 11y ago
No, he's correct. In addition I would add that passive error correction is taking leaps and bounds lately, making dephasing essentially a non issue in multi-qubit systems (scalability is yet to be fully manifested)
- IIAOPSW 11y ago
  correct in what respect? I'm not trying to be rude here but it is unclear what exactly I'm being called out on. Do you disagree with my use of the word "surface codes" or do you disagree with the way I've lumped a bunch of QEC's together under one name? Or is the disagreement something else entirely. And yeah I'm aware of the advances in passive QEC. Exciting time to be alive!
  - selimthegrim 11y ago
    The he I meant was you, I'm not calling you out.