3 ms·
Without having read the paper, is the claim that it would take 10,000 years to emulate the results on a classical computer?
by hervature 7y ago
Without having read the paper, is the claim that it would take 10,000 years to emulate the results on a classical computer?
- gundmc 7y agoIt's in the second paragraph. "Our machine performed the target computation in 200 seconds, and from measurements in our experiment we determined that it would take the world’s fastest supercomputer 10,000 years to produce a similar output."
- hervature 7y agoI read the article, just not the actual paywalled paper, this statement says absolutely nothing. Here's a computation takes me less time than a supercomputer will time to calculate classically: 10e10000000000 + 10e10000000000 = 2*10e10000000000
- lake_vincent 7y agoI wouldn't say "emulate", because a classical computer wouldn't be trying to solve it the same way as the quantum computer. The point (which would be amazing if true) is that a classical supercomputer would take 10,000 years to solve the same problem, no matter what method/algorithm it used.
- sanxiyn 7y agoOf course "any algorithm" part can't be proved, because that is equivalent to proving P vs PSPACE. (PSPACE is as powerful as any quantum computer.) Just like everything in computational complexity, proof is under "standard assumptions".
- hervature 7y agoFor those that downvoted me, Scott Aaronson clarifies here that they do indeed mean simulate on a classical computer: https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=4372 https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=4372