3 ms·

Programming current quantum computers does not require swapping wires around. You can go to https://quantum-computing.ibm.com https://quantum-computing.ibm.com

Programming current quantum computers does not require swapping wires around. You can go to https://quantum-computing.ibm.com https://quantum-computing.ibm.com right now, drag some operations around in an editor, and have their quantum computer run those operations. No one is madly dashing around changing wires when you do that.

westurner 5y ago
That was how they did it back in the old days though. Q: "Ask HN: What's the Equivalent of 'Hello, World' for a Quantum Computer?" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22707580 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22707580 [ IBM Qiskit, Microsoft Q#, Google TFQ TensorFlow Quantum, Google Cirq ([NumFOCUS,] SymPy) ] - https://www.tensorflow.org/quantum/tutorials/hello_many_worlds https://www.tensorflow.org/quantum/tutorials/hello_many_worl... A: Set a register to zero and see how many times it reads as zero: A) in the local software simulator; and B) with just one modern day qubit register.
NohatCoder 5y ago
All the offered "quantum computers" are suspiciously easily simulated on a normal PC.
- klyrs 5y ago
  Not if you try to simulate the actual device under test, and not an idealized version of what it isn't. Nothing suspicious about it, they're small and noisy. Scalability is extremely hard for quantum computers, and there's distinct tradeoffs that need to be made in their engineering. As far as I know, nobody in the industry is making absurd claims about their current offerings. That said, some claims of projected growth I've seen appear to be batshit. And, I believe that you're wrong: Google's quantum supremacy result appears to be genuine, and IBM's refutation was, essentially, "we can use a ginormous supercomputer to match that" -- not your ordinary desktop.
- reikonomusha 5y ago
  46 qubits of a perfectly ideal quantum computer require a petabyte of RAM to simulate, and about 10 quadrillion—if not more—arithmetic instructions to perform a single quantum instruction.

westurner 5y ago

That was how they did it back in the old days though. Q: "Ask HN: What's the Equivalent of 'Hello, World' for a Quantum Computer?" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22707580 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22707580 [ IBM Qiskit, Microsoft Q#, Google TFQ TensorFlow Quantum, Google Cirq ([NumFOCUS,] SymPy) ] - https://www.tensorflow.org/quantum/tutorials/hello_many_worlds https://www.tensorflow.org/quantum/tutorials/hello_many_worl... A: Set a register to zero and see how many times it reads as zero: A) in the local software simulator; and B) with just one modern day qubit register.

NohatCoder 5y ago

All the offered "quantum computers" are suspiciously easily simulated on a normal PC.

klyrs 5y ago
Not if you try to simulate the actual device under test, and not an idealized version of what it isn't. Nothing suspicious about it, they're small and noisy. Scalability is extremely hard for quantum computers, and there's distinct tradeoffs that need to be made in their engineering. As far as I know, nobody in the industry is making absurd claims about their current offerings. That said, some claims of projected growth I've seen appear to be batshit. And, I believe that you're wrong: Google's quantum supremacy result appears to be genuine, and IBM's refutation was, essentially, "we can use a ginormous supercomputer to match that" -- not your ordinary desktop.
reikonomusha 5y ago
46 qubits of a perfectly ideal quantum computer require a petabyte of RAM to simulate, and about 10 quadrillion—if not more—arithmetic instructions to perform a single quantum instruction.