3 ms·
I'm a layman on this, but reading IBM's rebuttal, it seems that they're saying "you can't say that a conventional supercomputer would take 10'000 years because
by nevi-me 7y ago
I'm a layman on this, but reading IBM's rebuttal, it seems that they're saying "you can't say that a conventional supercomputer would take 10'000 years because you haven't accounted for spilling to disk and other optimisations".
I understand that some of these optimisations might be on the processing logic, but doesn't this end up being like comparing apples to oranges?
I understand that there's also what seems to be technicalities around what is "quantum supremacy", but I assume that on a 'processor against processor' basis, this is still significant. Am I oversimplifying things?
- apawloski 7y agoThey're saying explicitly: >We argue that an ideal simulation of the same task can be performed on a classical system in 2.5 days and with far greater fidelity. and therefore >Because the original meaning of the term “quantum supremacy,” as proposed by John Preskill in 2012, was to describe the point where quantum computers can do things that classical computers can’t, this threshold has not been met.
- sanxiyn 7y agoNo, the point is that spilling to disk allows you to run classical algorithm linearly, so there is no exponential speedup. I elaborated this in detail here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21334025 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21334025