2 ms·
This computation is... handwaves, most handwaving I've done in a while...initializing a random state, and it's well-understood whether this state was randomly i
by refulgentis 2y ago
This computation is... handwaves, most handwaving I've done in a while...initializing a random state, and it's well-understood whether this state was randomly initialized isn't computable in a reasonable timeframe on classical computers. ends extreme handwaving
This nerd sniped a bunch of us, because it sounds like "oh we proved P!=NP", the keys to understanding are A) hanging onto the this in "this computation" (this is easier when you're familiar with the computation and it's contextual history in the field) B) remembering prime factors as a plausible application of QC.
Then faced with the contradiction of B, it's neatly resolved by "yes, but the quantum computer isn't big enough to do prime factorization yet"
As noted somewhat sideways in the blog, if someone has a computation that is A) not classically computable in a reasonable timeframe B) is computable on a miniscule quantum computer C) can be verified on a classic computer in a reasonable timeframe, a lot of researchers will be excited.
- jl6 2y agoDoes this mean that the problem of not being able to verify QC results will go away in the scenario where we have a large enough QC to solve an NP problem?
- refulgentis 2y agoCorrect, you nailed it. FWIW: There were some really cool comments on the last article re: Willow. One of them being, a reference to a apparently well-known "roadmap" of quantum scaling that apparently got written up a few years back. Apparently the Willow result was the 2026 baseline projection. So their message was "well...not too big a deal, we achieved 2026 at ~2025." Also said that the same roadmap would have that achieved in 15-20 years.