Google says it’s achieved ‘quantum supremacy’. What does this actually mean?
Google says one of its quantum computers has been able to solve a problem that would be practically impossible to do on a conventional computer, becoming the first to achieve so-called “quantum supremacy”.
more…
Tau.Neutrino said:
Google says it’s achieved ‘quantum supremacy’. What does this actually mean?Google says one of its quantum computers has been able to solve a problem that would be practically impossible to do on a conventional computer, becoming the first to achieve so-called “quantum supremacy”.
more…
Probably just slashed the value of a Bitcoin.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Google says it’s achieved ‘quantum supremacy’. What does this actually mean?Google says one of its quantum computers has been able to solve a problem that would be practically impossible to do on a conventional computer, becoming the first to achieve so-called “quantum supremacy”.
more…
QI, but I’ll wait to read the Bing report on it.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Google says it’s achieved ‘quantum supremacy’. What does this actually mean?Google says one of its quantum computers has been able to solve a problem that would be practically impossible to do on a conventional computer, becoming the first to achieve so-called “quantum supremacy”.
more…
> Using a processor with programmable superconducting qubits, the Google team was able to run a computation in 200 seconds that they estimated the fastest supercomputer in the world would take 10,000 years to complete.
OK, OK, i was wrong. I thought quantum computing would never amount to anything.
Only 53 qubits?
I solemnly hope i could get a good approximation method working to arbitrary high accuracy in much less time than that. I have been known to speed up an algorithm by a factor of 10,000. But this is more than that.
It looks like a timescale of order 16^n where n is the number of qubits. When you get a problem requiring exponential time like this – it’s a fair bet that there’s a better way to format tge problem. So that somthing like branch and bound can be applied.
10,000 years divided by 16^53 is what?
mollwollfumble said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Google says it’s achieved ‘quantum supremacy’. What does this actually mean?Google says one of its quantum computers has been able to solve a problem that would be practically impossible to do on a conventional computer, becoming the first to achieve so-called “quantum supremacy”.
more…
> Using a processor with programmable superconducting qubits, the Google team was able to run a computation in 200 seconds that they estimated the fastest supercomputer in the world would take 10,000 years to complete.
OK, OK, i was wrong. I thought quantum computing would never amount to anything.
Only 53 qubits?
I solemnly hope i could get a good approximation method working to arbitrary high accuracy in much less time than that. I have been known to speed up an algorithm by a factor of 10,000. But this is more than that.
It looks like a timescale of order 16^n where n is the number of qubits. When you get a problem requiring exponential time like this – it’s a fair bet that there’s a better way to format tge problem. So that somthing like branch and bound can be applied.
10,000 years divided by 16^53 is what?
4.79124E-53 seconds
The Rev Dodgson said:
mollwollfumble said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Google says it’s achieved ‘quantum supremacy’. What does this actually mean?Google says one of its quantum computers has been able to solve a problem that would be practically impossible to do on a conventional computer, becoming the first to achieve so-called “quantum supremacy”.
more…
> Using a processor with programmable superconducting qubits, the Google team was able to run a computation in 200 seconds that they estimated the fastest supercomputer in the world would take 10,000 years to complete.
OK, OK, i was wrong. I thought quantum computing would never amount to anything.
Only 53 qubits?
I solemnly hope i could get a good approximation method working to arbitrary high accuracy in much less time than that. I have been known to speed up an algorithm by a factor of 10,000. But this is more than that.
It looks like a timescale of order 16^n where n is the number of qubits. When you get a problem requiring exponential time like this – it’s a fair bet that there’s a better way to format tge problem. So that somthing like branch and bound can be applied.
10,000 years divided by 16^53 is what?
4.79124E-53 seconds
Hmm, think i miscalculated there. That’s a lot less than a teraflop.