> (Of course, and I suppose this is your point, quantum computers with a sufficient numbers of qubits to prove supremacy in factorization do not yet exist.) Th

> (Of course, and I suppose this is your point, quantum computers with a sufficient numbers of qubits to prove supremacy in factorization do not yet exist.) That is sort of the point, but not quite. We do not have general-purpose quantum computers with even a single qubit! We've redefined qubits in the NISQ context for the purpose of demonstrating quantum supremacy, and that is all they are good for. If Google expands Sycamore to hold a billion qubits, it will not be capable of factoring 6. The hope is that if we accomplished that, then we could use those learnings to make single-purpose quantum computers or general-purpose quantum computers. But we haven't gotten there yet. This is not a matter of adding more NISQ qubits to any of the existing projects! > result 50% of the time 50% would be astonishingly good. If all the quantum computer can say is "well, one of these sqrt(N) possibilities are 50% likely to be a factor" then we haven't improved anything. And the IBM result on attempting to factor 35 seems to fall into this pattern; the noise level is too high.