5 ms·

"I like to say that for me, the #1 application of quantum computing—more than codebreaking, machine learning, or even quantum simulation—is just disproving the

by smaddox 10y ago

"I like to say that for me, the #1 application of quantum computing—more than codebreaking, machine learning, or even quantum simulation—is just disproving the people who say quantum computing is impossible! So, quantum supremacy targets that application." \facepalm

asendra 10y ago
Quantum PC master race? /s
- krastanov 10y ago
  "Quantum supremacy" experiments are those that can show that quantum computing can indeed do things that classical computers can not, without having to build an entire quantum computer. They are important in practice because they are "cheap" checks on whether our premises are wrong and important in theory because they show interesting new ways to think about the problems we want to solve.
  - weinzierl 10y ago
    > "Quantum supremacy" experiments are those that can show that quantum computing can indeed do things that classical computers can not [...] Putting it the way you did is very misleading for folks not familiar with the difference between complexity and computability. Quantum computing is not about computability, because it is well agreed that a quantum computer can solve exactly all problems a classical computer can and vice versa (Church–Turing thesis). What is not agreed on is if there are problems that a quantum computer can solve more efficiently than a classical computer (where more efficiently means either in time or space and has a strict mathematical definition). Now, put simply, if someone could come up with a computer that would solve a task faster than the theoretical limit of a classical computer that would put an end to the discussion once and for all. This is what Quantum Supremacy means in the article, or in the words of Scott Aaronson: > But what quantum supremacy means to me, is demonstrating a quantum speedup for some task as confidently as possible.
krastanov 10y ago
Could you elaborate on why you dislike this quote? Maybe there is some context missing: for a lot of researchers quantum computing is interesting because of how its existence informs fundamental questions in physics and math like the Church-Turing thesis. For those people the code breaking application are indeed pretty boring, just like internal combustion engines can be boring for people working on statistical physics and thermodynamics.
- hnal943 10y ago
  Well, it's not really an application, is it? It seems like a fancy way of saying, "the stuff I'm working on isn't good for anything - it's just to satisfy my intellectual curiosity". Which is fine as far as it goes, but not exactly inspiring.
  - krastanov 10y ago
    I would say for me it is the applications that are boring, not the fundamentals behind them. For a lot of people fundamental laws of nature are deeply inspiring, tangentially because of a belief that those fundamental laws and their deeper understanding bear fruit beyond our wildest imagination. Compared to this it is easy to see how today's applications are just boring. Sure, today's technology was yesterday's research project, but you can not fault people for being excited more about current research than about applications of yesterday's research. PS: However I agree that the quoted statement was poorly phrased to convey this sentiment. From what I know about the speaker I am fairly confident that this is what he was trying to say.
  - artimaeis 10y ago
    Maybe we're reading it differently, but it seems to me that he's admitting there are practical applications, but their importance is unclear if we can't first demonstrate that the QC approach is superior.
jobu 10y ago
If you continue reading, he's making an argument that comes together at the end: "After this scientific milestone is achieved, I predict that the whole discussion of commercial applications of quantum computing will shift to a new plane, much like the Manhattan Project shifted to a new plane after Fermi built his pile under the Chicago stadium in 1942. In other words: at this point, the most “applied” thing to do might be to set applications aside temporarily, and just achieve this quantum supremacy milestone—i.e., build the quantum computing Fermi pile—and thereby show the world that quantum computing speedups are a reality." He's saying we need to do some purely scientific experiments to demonstrate the fundamentals of quantum computing before we start trying to use it for codebreaking or AI.

by smaddox 10y ago

asendra 10y ago

Quantum PC master race? /s

krastanov 10y ago
"Quantum supremacy" experiments are those that can show that quantum computing can indeed do things that classical computers can not, without having to build an entire quantum computer. They are important in practice because they are "cheap" checks on whether our premises are wrong and important in theory because they show interesting new ways to think about the problems we want to solve.
- weinzierl 10y ago
  > "Quantum supremacy" experiments are those that can show that quantum computing can indeed do things that classical computers can not [...] Putting it the way you did is very misleading for folks not familiar with the difference between complexity and computability. Quantum computing is not about computability, because it is well agreed that a quantum computer can solve exactly all problems a classical computer can and vice versa (Church–Turing thesis). What is not agreed on is if there are problems that a quantum computer can solve more efficiently than a classical computer (where more efficiently means either in time or space and has a strict mathematical definition). Now, put simply, if someone could come up with a computer that would solve a task faster than the theoretical limit of a classical computer that would put an end to the discussion once and for all. This is what Quantum Supremacy means in the article, or in the words of Scott Aaronson: > But what quantum supremacy means to me, is demonstrating a quantum speedup for some task as confidently as possible.

krastanov 10y ago

Could you elaborate on why you dislike this quote? Maybe there is some context missing: for a lot of researchers quantum computing is interesting because of how its existence informs fundamental questions in physics and math like the Church-Turing thesis. For those people the code breaking application are indeed pretty boring, just like internal combustion engines can be boring for people working on statistical physics and thermodynamics.

hnal943 10y ago
Well, it's not really an application, is it? It seems like a fancy way of saying, "the stuff I'm working on isn't good for anything - it's just to satisfy my intellectual curiosity". Which is fine as far as it goes, but not exactly inspiring.
- krastanov 10y ago
  I would say for me it is the applications that are boring, not the fundamentals behind them. For a lot of people fundamental laws of nature are deeply inspiring, tangentially because of a belief that those fundamental laws and their deeper understanding bear fruit beyond our wildest imagination. Compared to this it is easy to see how today's applications are just boring. Sure, today's technology was yesterday's research project, but you can not fault people for being excited more about current research than about applications of yesterday's research. PS: However I agree that the quoted statement was poorly phrased to convey this sentiment. From what I know about the speaker I am fairly confident that this is what he was trying to say.
- artimaeis 10y ago
  Maybe we're reading it differently, but it seems to me that he's admitting there are practical applications, but their importance is unclear if we can't first demonstrate that the QC approach is superior.

jobu 10y ago

If you continue reading, he's making an argument that comes together at the end: "After this scientific milestone is achieved, I predict that the whole discussion of commercial applications of quantum computing will shift to a new plane, much like the Manhattan Project shifted to a new plane after Fermi built his pile under the Chicago stadium in 1942. In other words: at this point, the most “applied” thing to do might be to set applications aside temporarily, and just achieve this quantum supremacy milestone—i.e., build the quantum computing Fermi pile—and thereby show the world that quantum computing speedups are a reality." He's saying we need to do some purely scientific experiments to demonstrate the fundamentals of quantum computing before we start trying to use it for codebreaking or AI.