4 ms·

lololol you keep dancing around the issue - now we're on to comparing "excited" to "useful"; the question wasn't what you're excited to work with (i'm excited t

lololol you keep dancing around the issue - now we're on to comparing "excited" to "useful"; the question wasn't what you're excited to work with (i'm excited to work with 5 qubits through qiskit). the question, plain as day: >what's the smallest useful (as in, 'non-toy', or maybe 'worth buying time on') quantum computer? very obviously this person isn't asking about useful for writing papers... >You are making up the least charitable possible interpretation of an offhand comment nothing imagined here. just english. sorry. > and getting angry at your imagination. lol you keep insisting i'm angry. i mean if a reviewer reviews your submission and calls you out for inflating numbers i guess they're angry too? oh well

krastanov 5y ago
You are splitting hairs and picking arbitrary ways to interpret what I am saying. I would be excited, it would be useful, it would be great to work with a 100 physical qubits, so that we can test control schemes, small error correction procedures, maybe some entanglement purificant circuits, etc. You are willfully misinterpreting at this point.
- tubby12345 5y ago
  no you are willfully misinterpreting this question posed by a layman >what's the smallest useful (as in, 'non-toy', or maybe 'worth buying time on') quantum computer? this question is not about papers or research - it is about value for problems/questions outside QC. simple as that. the answer to that question is ~100,000 physical qubits not 100. again this whole exchange with you just further reaffirms that there's a very very strong reality distortion field around this entire area of academia.
  - krastanov 5y ago
    And if you actually read my answer you see that I agree and in the first paragraph say that you would need around 1M physical qubits for anything practical!? The second paragraph specifically says it is about researchers in the field trying to push the field forward, playing with 100 physical qubits (yes, that usually involves writing papers).

krastanov 5y ago

You are splitting hairs and picking arbitrary ways to interpret what I am saying. I would be excited, it would be useful, it would be great to work with a 100 physical qubits, so that we can test control schemes, small error correction procedures, maybe some entanglement purificant circuits, etc. You are willfully misinterpreting at this point.

tubby12345 5y ago
no you are willfully misinterpreting this question posed by a layman >what's the smallest useful (as in, 'non-toy', or maybe 'worth buying time on') quantum computer? this question is not about papers or research - it is about value for problems/questions outside QC. simple as that. the answer to that question is ~100,000 physical qubits not 100. again this whole exchange with you just further reaffirms that there's a very very strong reality distortion field around this entire area of academia.
- krastanov 5y ago
  And if you actually read my answer you see that I agree and in the first paragraph say that you would need around 1M physical qubits for anything practical!? The second paragraph specifically says it is about researchers in the field trying to push the field forward, playing with 100 physical qubits (yes, that usually involves writing papers).