On Saturday, November 2, 2019 at 6:33:44 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 5:42 AM Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com > <javascript:>> wrote: > > *> This was a pretty pointless article. Aaronson says nothing about what >> is potentially useful for QCs* >> > > Aaronson: "*One major milestone to watch for next will be the first use > of small quantum computers to simulate the quantum physics of chemicals and > materials in a way that’s actually useful to chemists and materials > scientists. Simulating quantum mechanics — that is, overcoming the > exponential explosion of amplitudes in nature via a computer equipped with > the same power" * > > *> How parallel computing can be achieved with qubits:* >> > > All Quantum Computers are inherently parallel, the key attribute to note > is their scalability, and Aaronson says: > "*We’re now in an era where, with heroic effort, the biggest > supercomputers on earth can still maybe, almost simulate quantum computers > doing their thing. But the very fact that the race is close today suggests > that it won’t remain close for long. If Google’s chip had used 60 qubits > rather than 53, then simulating its results with IBM’s approach would > require 30 Oak Ridge supercomputers *[the largest conventional computer > on Earth]*. With 70 qubits, it would require enough supercomputers to > fill a city. And so on*." > > John K Clark >
It;s the how (*How parallel computing can be achieved with qubits*) that's missing. Someone reading his article not knowing the how multiple computational trajectories are happening in parallel would be lost, I think. @philipthrift @philipthrift -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a150afdf-6899-414d-bdbb-507d3f1f4ff9%40googlegroups.com.
