4 ms·
Regardless of what they say, Quantum computer solved it in 200 seconds and IBM states that their super-computer solves it in 2.5 days (Google says 10,000 years.
by onetimemanytime 7y ago
Regardless of what they say, Quantum computer solved it in 200 seconds and IBM states that their super-computer solves it in 2.5 days (Google says 10,000 years.) Even if we take IBM's claim at face value, 200 seconds vs 2.5 DAYS is still a lot of improvement, semantics aside. Not to mention that quantum computers have just started
- sanxiyn 7y agoNo, 2.5 days is irrelevant. This is about proving exponential speedup, but IBM is claiming linear scaling, so it is a serious challenge.
- mda 7y agoWhat if it is linear but angle is so steep that you require all the sands in the world to achieve parity with a classical computer, does it still count?
- sanxiyn 7y agoOf course. Quantum supremacy is a claim about computational complexity. 200 seconds vs 2.5 days is 1000x slowdown. In practical terms, x^10 is even worse than 1000x (linear), but if quantum computer could be simulated in x^10, that would definitely disprove quantum supremacy.
- contravariant 7y agoMaybe but 1) that's hard to prove and 2) it's hard to achieve unless you're looking at some sub-problem where the quantum and classical algorithm actually do scale differently.
- drcode 7y agoI think in that case you would probably be able to formulate the problem in a different way to show that the angle arises through an exponential process (or more) and that the problem isn't truly linear.
- mmusson 7y agoThey say linear in time for increasing circuit depth not increasing qubits. They also don’t address the classical algorithm being exponential in memory as well.