3 ms·
From what I understood, yeah, it's a different kind of quantum computer, and it's a cause of lots of confusion. I.e. when d-wave says "we already have a xxx bit
by hannob 8y ago
From what I understood, yeah, it's a different kind of quantum computer, and it's a cause of lots of confusion. I.e. when d-wave says "we already have a xxx bit quantum computer", it sounds impressive, but it really is meaningless compared to qbits in a "real" (and until now hypothetical) quantum computer.
Also until now D-Wave has been unable to show that their QC can do anything at all faster than a classical computer. Which really puts this into perspective: This is all early research. Something interesting may come out of it some day. Or not.
- klyrs 8y ago> I.e. when d-wave says "we already have a xxx bit quantum computer", it sounds impressive, but it really is meaningless compared to qbits in a "real" (and until now hypothetical) quantum computer. Only, gate model quantum computers require error correction. Which doesn't sound bad except that thousands of qubits are required to implement a single error corrected qubit. I.e. when IBM says "we already have a 5 qubit quantum computer", it sounds impressive, but it really is meaningless compared to qubits in the theoretical framework that promises a speedup. If we're willing to accept unimplemented theory in favor of scalable architecture, then adiabatic and gate model are known to be polynomially equivalent. So far, no quantum computing effort has shown superiority over classical computers, but you don't see this kind of skepticism over IBM and Rigetti's breathless headlines...
- scottlocklin 8y ago> This is all early research. D-wave was founded in 1999...