3 ms·
No, all points are protected, not just some set. And no, you do not need infinite precision gates. The only reasonable interpretation of your argument that I ca
by krastanov 4y ago
No, all points are protected, not just some set. And no, you do not need infinite precision gates. The only reasonable interpretation of your argument that I can think of is that you are saying that systematic coherent errors add up in a way that error correction can not fix. That is a fascinating problem but it seems to be fixed by turning these errors into incoherent ones through "twirling" and "randomized compilation".
- mikewarot 4y agoI hope you're right, it would be nice for QC to work out.
- shuuv4678igt 4y agodo you work on actual feasible implementation or just theoretical circuits for perfect mature qc?
- krastanov 4y agoI do basically zero work on "algorithms" or circuits for perfect quantum computers. The majority of my work is "here we have this noisy physical system, what can we do to it to make it look more like the abstract idea of a perfect quantum computer". I guess the classical equivalent would be "I am designing the internals of vacuum tubes".