3 ms·
Such a demonstration would prove nothing of importance, partly because the issue is not how fast a particular run takes, but how running time grows with the siz
by mannykannot 7y ago
Such a demonstration would prove nothing of importance, partly because the issue is not how fast a particular run takes, but how running time grows with the size of the problem. More significantly, the issue is whether the paper's argument for its original claim is sound, and that would be best addressed by showing where it goes wrong. For a brief and clear explanation, read this excellent post:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21334025 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21334025
If you don't follow what is being said there, reposting your question will not help.
- mellosouls 7y agoI'm sure you didn't intend snark, but no need for the tone - that's a new post and not a response to my original question. Thank you for the link to a potential explanation.
- mannykannot 7y agoMy apologies for the tone. I should have said that the best route to understanding the issue is probably via the linked post - it worked for me.
- mellosouls 7y agoThanks no worries
- mannykannot 7y agoI stand corrected by Scott Aaronson! [1] One of the things he says is that it would be useful to run IBM's algorithm, not to show that it can be done, but to verify Google's 53-qubit and depth-20 result, as, so far, Google has only been able to present indirect evidence that they are getting the correct result at this size of problem. [1] https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=4372 https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=4372
- mellosouls 7y agoYes, thanks, I've since read that - excellent and thorough article.