4 ms·
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 p
by 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 agono 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 agoAnd 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).