3 ms·

Genuinely curious then. When you say that it can't do anything that my laptop can't do. Is that based on simulation of actual quantum methods with all of the qu

Genuinely curious then. When you say that it can't do anything that my laptop can't do. Is that based on simulation of actual quantum methods with all of the quirks or simply traditional algorithms? If it's not truly simulation, there seems to me a ton of value in having even a little bit of access to something like this.

hannob 5y ago
It's both. You can easily simulate 11 qbits.
- _8091149529 5y ago
  There's a commercial product for classical simulation of small QPUs [0]. With dedicated hardware handles up to 41 qubits. I'm not affiliated with the company or endorsing their products, just pointing out that they exist. [0] https://atos.net/en/solutions/quantum-learning-machine https://atos.net/en/solutions/quantum-learning-machine
  - reikonomusha 5y ago
    You can also do this with purely free and open source software like [0]. [0] https://github.com/quil-lang/qvm https://github.com/quil-lang/qvm
clavigne 5y ago
The wavefunction of an n qubit system is representable by a 2^n vector of complex numbers [1]. Using single precision floats [2], a 10 qubit wavefunction is 8 KB, 20 qubit = 8 MB, 30 qubit = 8 GB and 40 qubit = 8 TB. Hence a run-of-the-mill laptop can easily simulate a perfect 30 qubit computer, provided you are using a sufficiently performant simulator (such as https://github.com/qulacs/qulacs https://github.com/qulacs/qulacs ). [1] This is actually a pessimistic upper bound for the classical simulation because current quantum hardware is not fully connected and not fully coherent. Most problems of interest (optimization, chemistry etc) also do not ever generate fully entangled wavefunctions and so can be simulated with significantly less resources. So for any applications (beyond simulating quantum advantage experiments built specifically to make classical simulation hard), classical computers are crushing quantum computers. [2] Because QM is a linear theory, numerical precision isnt an issue, as it would be in a chaotic classical simulation of eg fluid dynamics.

hannob 5y ago

It's both. You can easily simulate 11 qbits.

_8091149529 5y ago
There's a commercial product for classical simulation of small QPUs [0]. With dedicated hardware handles up to 41 qubits. I'm not affiliated with the company or endorsing their products, just pointing out that they exist. [0] https://atos.net/en/solutions/quantum-learning-machine https://atos.net/en/solutions/quantum-learning-machine
- reikonomusha 5y ago
  You can also do this with purely free and open source software like [0]. [0] https://github.com/quil-lang/qvm https://github.com/quil-lang/qvm

clavigne 5y ago

The wavefunction of an n qubit system is representable by a 2^n vector of complex numbers [1]. Using single precision floats [2], a 10 qubit wavefunction is 8 KB, 20 qubit = 8 MB, 30 qubit = 8 GB and 40 qubit = 8 TB. Hence a run-of-the-mill laptop can easily simulate a perfect 30 qubit computer, provided you are using a sufficiently performant simulator (such as https://github.com/qulacs/qulacs https://github.com/qulacs/qulacs ). [1] This is actually a pessimistic upper bound for the classical simulation because current quantum hardware is not fully connected and not fully coherent. Most problems of interest (optimization, chemistry etc) also do not ever generate fully entangled wavefunctions and so can be simulated with significantly less resources. So for any applications (beyond simulating quantum advantage experiments built specifically to make classical simulation hard), classical computers are crushing quantum computers. [2] Because QM is a linear theory, numerical precision isnt an issue, as it would be in a chaotic classical simulation of eg fluid dynamics.