4 ms·
For the Microsoft one I'm assuming you're referring to the retraction of the detection of Majoranas [1]. Do you have a reference for a Google quantum paper bei
by Strilanc 4y ago
For the Microsoft one I'm assuming you're referring to the retraction of the detection of Majoranas [1].
Do you have a reference for a Google quantum paper being retracted? I don't recall an instance of that (disclaimer: I am on the Google quantum team; my views do not represent them).
1: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03373-x https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03373-x
- dekhn 4y agoNot a retraction, just that many of the claims about supercomputer performance were easily shown to be less than accurate, making any claims about supremacy less exciting.
- pclmulqdq 4y agoThe Google "supremacy" paper wasn't retracted per se, it was just shown to be wrong. They claimed to do a thing on a quantum computer (specifically, simulating a particular quantum circuit) that would take 40,000 years on a classical supercomputer, assuming a particular method for doing the computation. The real number was 2.5 days, and the computing breakthrough involved in the huge speedup was... using SSDs to store your intermediate state instead of recomputing it every iteration.