2 ms·

The fact that the calculation would take 47 years on a classical computer is only a break through if the calculation is something we actually want to do. Otherw

by troupe 3y ago

The fact that the calculation would take 47 years on a classical computer is only a break through if the calculation is something we actually want to do. Otherwise it just means that we have created an unnecessary problem designed to be solved quickly by a quantum computer. That isn't to say that this quantum computer isn't impressive and a step forward. Just that the comparison isn't really meaningful unless the problem being calculated transcends computer architecture--meaning it is actually interesting to solve regardless of the architecture being used.

tsimionescu 3y ago
No one is claiming that general purpose quantum computers are useful right now. Instead, people are trying to prove that certain physical devices they have built behave like the theoretical model of a quantum computer. To help prove that, people have found contrived problems that don't care about errors but that theoretical quantum computers can solve exponentially faster than classical computers. If these physical devices can solve those problems, that is proof that they are on the right path to one day solving actually interesting problems like Shor's algorithm. There are of course some caveats. For one, the test problems discovered so far are believed to take exponentially more time on a classical computer, but there is no rigorous proof yet (in fact, it is not yet proven that there doesn't exist a classical algorithm that could run as fast as Shor's). The second is that the current quantum computers are so small compared to classical ones that, even with an exponential advantage, they can't always solve things fast enough to prove without a shadow of a doubt that they have this advantage. So, improvements in this time difference compared to the largest known classical computers is still a worthwhile goal.

2 ms·

The fact that the calculation would take 47 years on a classical computer is only a break through if the calculation is something we actually want to do. Otherw

by troupe 3y ago

tsimionescu 3y ago
No one is claiming that general purpose quantum computers are useful right now. Instead, people are trying to prove that certain physical devices they have built behave like the theoretical model of a quantum computer. To help prove that, people have found contrived problems that don't care about errors but that theoretical quantum computers can solve exponentially faster than classical computers. If these physical devices can solve those problems, that is proof that they are on the right path to one day solving actually interesting problems like Shor's algorithm. There are of course some caveats. For one, the test problems discovered so far are believed to take exponentially more time on a classical computer, but there is no rigorous proof yet (in fact, it is not yet proven that there doesn't exist a classical algorithm that could run as fast as Shor's). The second is that the current quantum computers are so small compared to classical ones that, even with an exponential advantage, they can't always solve things fast enough to prove without a shadow of a doubt that they have this advantage. So, improvements in this time difference compared to the largest known classical computers is still a worthwhile goal.