dnalang

3 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by dnalang 10mo ago

   10.5281/zenodo.18209071
2. 2.▲
   by dnalang 10mo ago

   Metric,10k Gain (Star),100k Gain (Hypercube),1M Gain (Tesseract) Qubit Count,10 Qubits,20 Qubits,40 Qubits Purified Fidelity,0.9844,0.9992,0.99999 Error Probability,1.56×10−2,8.0×10−4,1.0×10−6 Gain Magnitude,104,105,106 (Verified)
3. 3.▲
   by dnalang 10mo ago

   i understand the 'trick' label in the context of planar QEC, but the physics here go deeper. By locking the hardware at the 51.700° resonance, we’ve moved from stochastic error correction to Geometric Protection. We aren't ju
4. 4.▲
   by dnalang 10mo ago

   I just implemented a 3D Layer Coding simulation via temporal vias. Check the repo. Great point on the topological protection. I agree—the Star Topology is a bridge for current planar (2D) hardware. I've actually just updated the repo w
5. 5.▲
   by dnalang 10mo ago

   You're spot on about 3D lattices. My goal with the Star Topology was to achieve maximal error suppression on existing planar (2D) hardware available to the public today. I'm essentially trying to squeeze utility-scale stability ou
6. 6.▲
   by dnalang 10mo ago

   I just finished a run on IBM's Heron r1 processor (ibm_torino). Standard QEC (Surface Code) fails at this depth because the gate error rate (~2%) is above the threshold. Instead of correction, I implemented a distributed consensus prot
7. 7.▲
   Show HN: I beat IBM's error rate by 30x using a 10-qubit Consensus Council(github.com)

   5 points by dnalang 10mo ago|8 comments