3 ms·
No, 2.5 days is irrelevant. This is about proving exponential speedup, but IBM is claiming linear scaling, so it is a serious challenge.
by sanxiyn 7y ago
No, 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.