3 ms·
“Still, the Google demonstration was not just hype, researchers say. Sycamore required far fewer operations and less power than a supercomputer, Zhang notes. An
by cwillu 4y ago
“Still, the Google demonstration was not just hype, researchers say. Sycamore required far fewer operations and less power than a supercomputer, Zhang notes. And if Sycamore had slightly higher fidelity, he says, his team’s simulation couldn’t have kept up. As Hangleiter puts it, “The Google experiment did what it was meant to do, start this race.””
- cwillu 4y agoAlso (from the preprint): “At the same time, our experiments also reflect that Google’s hardware has several advantages over our algo- rithm. The most significant one is that Google’s hardware is much faster in sampling the quantum circuits with sufficient depth, while our algorithm has exponential complexity, hence is not scalable to both depth and qubit number”
- dekhn 4y agoThe scaling part is obviously the relevant part of QC, and when somebody can come up with a QC that solves a Real Problem that couldn't be solved by a crack team of supercomputer developers, we'll all be very happy and then the community can say they've achieved "supremacy".
- dekhn 4y agoIf you want to convince people that QC works, don't say you solved something a supercomputer takes 10K years to solve. The Google experiment didn't start any races- it was a flag planted in the ground, but the ground wasn't stable. Nobody is racing to improve this algorithm except people who want to show their classical computer chops, because the algorithm doesn't do anything useful.