Re: Computers and Quantum Supremacy

On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 1:48:17 PM UTC-5 Brent wrote: > Yet it's not clear that they actually demonstrated quantum supremacy. See > https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=5868 > > Brent > > The Chinese have made a number of these quantum computing systems that are singly devo

Re: Computers and Quantum Supremacy

Yet it's not clear that they actually demonstrated quantum supremacy.  See https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=5868 Brent On 10/26/2021 7:45 AM, John Clark wrote: In yesterday's issue of the journal Physical Review Letters researchers in China report they have performed a calculation in a problem

Computers and Quantum Supremacy

nd claimed quantum supremacy using a 53 qubit Quantum Computer, the Chinese used a 56 qubit Quantum Computer, that may seem like just a small increase but with Quantum Computers things build exponentially so that the problem the Chinese were able to solve was astronomically more complex than the one

Re: Why Google’s Quantum Supremacy Milestone Matters

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 > wrote: > > *> This was a pretty pointless article. Aaronson says nothing about what >> is potentially useful for QCs* >> > > Aaronson: "*One major milestone to watch for

Re: Why Google’s Quantum Supremacy Milestone Matters

On Saturday, November 2, 2019 at 12:32:26 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Friday, November 1, 2019 at 3:25:21 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: >> >> Quantum Computer expert Scott Aaronson wrote a editorial in the October >> 30 2019 New York Times: >&g

Re: Why Google’s Quantum Supremacy Milestone Matters

On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 5:42 AM Philip Thrift 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

Re: Why Google’s Quantum Supremacy Milestone Matters

On Friday, November 1, 2019 at 4:25:21 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > Quantum Computer expert Scott Aaronson wrote a editorial in the October > 30 2019 New York Times: > > Why Google’s Quantum Supremacy Milestone Matters > <https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/30/opinion/google

Re: Why Google’s Quantum Supremacy Milestone Matters

On Friday, November 1, 2019 at 3:25:21 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: > > Quantum Computer expert Scott Aaronson wrote a editorial in the October > 30 2019 New York Times: > > Why Google’s Quantum Supremacy Milestone Matters > <https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/30/opinion/go

Why Google’s Quantum Supremacy Milestone Matters

Quantum Computer expert Scott Aaronson wrote a editorial in the October 30 2019 New York Times: Why Google’s Quantum Supremacy Milestone Matters <https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/30/opinion/google-quantum-computer-sycamore.html> * Why Google’s Quantum Supremacy Milestone M

Re: Quantum Supremacy

a pretty good deal right now. Here's hoping! -Original Message- From: John Clark To: everything-list Sent: Wed, Oct 23, 2019 2:52 pm Subject: Re: Quantum Supremacy On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 1:11 PM spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: > You once stated in this mailing list, that

Re: Quantum Supremacy

On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 1:11 PM spudboy100 via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > You once stated in this mailing list, that you thought the human world > will change, if and when we hit 100 successful qubit operations. Does your > conjecture on this still hold, or have

Re: Quantum Supremacy

- From: John Clark To: everything-list Sent: Wed, Oct 23, 2019 6:41 am Subject: Quantum Supremacy Today Google officially published in the journal Nature it's article claiming their 53 Qubit Quantum Computer (it was actually 54 Qubit but one Qubit didn't  work) could solve a problem in 3 minutes

Quantum Supremacy

: Quantum supremacy <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1666-5> Very recently IBM, another company working on Quantum Computers, has disputed Google's claim: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1910.09534.pdf IBM says they have found a classical algorithm that if running on the largest cla

The hybrid Schrödinger-Feynman algorithm (in the quantum supremacy experiment)

https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.10749 : *Quantum Supremacy Is Both Closer and Farther than It Appears* Our algorithms can be characterized as Schrödinger-Feynman hybrids. Our simulator combines highly-optimized Schrödinger-style simulation within each qubit block and simulates xCZ gates

Re: Quantum Supremacy.

On Saturday, September 28, 2019 at 12:06:57 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > Here is a copy of that leaked paper: > > Quantum Supremacy Using a Programmable Superconducting Processor > <https://drive.google.com/file/d/19lv8p1fB47z1pEZVlfDXhop082Lc-kdD/view> > >

Re: Quantum Supremacy.

I would be most curious to know how they arrive at double exponential. I have not yet read this paper. LC On Saturday, September 28, 2019 at 12:06:57 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > Here is a copy of that leaked paper: > > Quantum Supremacy Using a Programmable Superconducti

Re: Quantum Supremacy.

an eye, occasionally for this reason, on QC, AI, and other developments that can accelerate the tools the species has, at hand to survive.   -Original Message- From: John Clark To: everything-list Sent: Sat, Sep 28, 2019 1:06 pm Subject: Quantum Supremacy. Here is a copy of that leaked

Quantum Supremacy.

Here is a copy of that leaked paper: Quantum Supremacy Using a Programmable Superconducting Processor <https://drive.google.com/file/d/19lv8p1fB47z1pEZVlfDXhop082Lc-kdD/view> I found these quotes from it to be particularly interesting: *"We show that quantum speedup is achievabl

Re: Quantum Supremacy

oogle's Quantum > Computer to the Wright brothers 1903 flyer or Enrico Fermi's 1942 pile, the > world's first nuclear reactor: > > Scott’s Supreme Quantum Supremacy FAQ! <https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/> > > John K Clark I follow well most of what Scott says on quantum

Re: Quantum Supremacy

pile, the world's first nuclear reactor: Scott’s Supreme Quantum Supremacy FAQ! <https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/> John K Clark John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from thi

Re: Quantum Supremacy

> On 23 Sep 2019, at 15:27, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > Le lun. 23 sept. 2019 à 15:23, John Clark > a écrit : > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 7:42 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > > Mathematically, it is still an open problem if a quantum

Re: Quantum Supremacy

> On 23 Sep 2019, at 16:30, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 7:23:44 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 7:42 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > > Mathematically, it is still an open problem if a quantum computer really > > speed-up the

Re: Quantum Supremacy

> On 23 Sep 2019, at 16:30, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 7:23:44 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 7:42 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > > Mathematically, it is still an open problem if a quantum computer really > > speed-up the

Re: Quantum Supremacy

On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 8:23:44 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 7:42 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > *> Mathematically, it is still an open problem if a quantum computer >> really speed-up the computations, but like with P = NP, most experts have >> few doubt that

Re: Quantum Supremacy

On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 7:23:44 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 7:42 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > *> Mathematically, it is still an open problem if a quantum computer >> really speed-up the computations, but like with P = NP, most experts have >> few doubt

Re: Quantum Supremacy

Le lun. 23 sept. 2019 à 15:23, John Clark a écrit : > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 7:42 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > > *> Mathematically, it is still an open problem if a quantum computer >> really speed-up the computations, but like with P = NP, most experts have >> few doubt that this is the case.* >

Re: Quantum Supremacy

On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 7:42 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: *> Mathematically, it is still an open problem if a quantum computer really > speed-up the computations, but like with P = NP, most experts have few > doubt that this is the case.* I think you mean P is not equal to NP, most mathematicians

Re: Quantum Supremacy

> On 21 Sep 2019, at 14:29, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Saturday, September 21, 2019 at 6:23:18 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: > There is a rumor that a team of researchers at Google led by John Martinis > have performed a calculation on a Quantum Computer in three minutes and 20 > seconds

Re: Quantum Supremacy

ver that there is also a more complicated algorithm that is > inherently serial, but actually runs faster than the paralellised one. > > I have a feeling that may have happened here. But I look forward to a > proper demonstration of quantum supremacy. > > > -- >

Re: Quantum Supremacy

Some more details in this article: https://fortune.com/2019/09/20/google-claims-quantum-supremacy/ Jason On Sat, Sep 21, 2019, 5:59 PM John Clark wrote: > On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 4:27 PM Lawrence Crowell < > goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Si

Re: Quantum Supremacy

On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 4:27 PM Lawrence Crowell < goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote: > Since quantum computers are in a superposition of various states a search > down a branching tree, say a search along a maze, can be done in a > superposition of states. This would appear to argue that a

Re: Quantum Supremacy

r on a parallel computer, however that there is also a more complicated algorithm that is inherently serial, but actually runs faster than the paralellised one. I have a feeling that may have happened here. But I look forward to a proper demonstration of quantum supremacy. --

Re: Quantum Supremacy

On Saturday, September 21, 2019 at 7:29:08 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Saturday, September 21, 2019 at 6:23:18 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: >> >> There is a rumor that a team of researchers at Google led by John >> Martinis have performed a calculation on a Quantum Computer in three

Re: Quantum Supremacy

that the Martinis triumph was either in error, or, had been working on decryption.  -Original Message- From: John Clark To: everything-list Sent: Sat, Sep 21, 2019 8:23 am Subject: Quantum Supremacy There is a rumor that a team of researchers at Google led by John Martinis have performed

Re: Quantum Supremacy

On 21-09-2019 18:54, Alan Grayson wrote: On Saturday, September 21, 2019 at 10:43:57 AM UTC-6, smitra wrote: On 21-09-2019 14:52, Alan Grayson wrote: On Saturday, September 21, 2019 at 6:40:50 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 8:29 AM Alan Grayson wrote: _> What I

Re: Quantum Supremacy

On Saturday, September 21, 2019 at 10:43:57 AM UTC-6, smitra wrote: > > On 21-09-2019 14:52, Alan Grayson wrote: > > On Saturday, September 21, 2019 at 6:40:50 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: > > > >> On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 8:29 AM Alan Grayson > >> wrote: > >> > >>> _> What I don't

Re: Quantum Supremacy

On 21-09-2019 14:52, Alan Grayson wrote: On Saturday, September 21, 2019 at 6:40:50 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 8:29 AM Alan Grayson wrote: _> What I don't understand is why a computer programmed to assume a superposition, say of two states, represents a system in

Re: Quantum Supremacy

On Saturday, September 21, 2019 at 6:40:50 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 8:29 AM Alan Grayson > wrote: > > *> What I don't understand is why a computer programmed to assume a >> superposition, say of two states, represents a system in both states >> simultaneously

Re: Quantum Supremacy

On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 8:29 AM Alan Grayson wrote: *> What I don't understand is why a computer programmed to assume a > superposition, say of two states, represents a system in both states > simultaneously (which I find to be false for reasons previously stated), > would speed up any

Re: Quantum Supremacy

On Saturday, September 21, 2019 at 6:23:18 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: > > There is a rumor that a team of researchers at Google led by John Martinis > have performed a calculation on a Quantum Computer in three minutes and > 20 seconds that would have taken Summit, the most powerful

Quantum Supremacy

There is a rumor that a team of researchers at Google led by John Martinis have performed a calculation on a Quantum Computer in three minutes and 20 seconds that would have taken Summit, the most powerful conventional supercomputer in the world, 10,000 years to perform. The rumor started when a

Re: Quantum Supremacy

On 03 Dec 2017, at 16:17, Lawrence Crowell wrote: On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 8:23:42 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: Bitcoin, and digital money, will need quantum encryption. Some of them can be failed, but only in theory. Well, the last time I readon on this, but the filed is

Re: Quantum Supremacy

On 03 Dec 2017, at 19:02, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 9:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​Bitcoin, and digital money, will need quantum encryption. ​There are​ ​quantum encryption​ ​protocols that even a quantum computer couldn't break, they would be as

Re: Quantum Supremacy

Ah! it always comes down to cyber-money ;-) -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com> Sent: Sun, Dec 3, 2017 9:23 am Subject: Re: Quantum Supremacy Bitcoin, and digital money, will need quantu

Re: Quantum Supremacy

There is post-quantum cryptography (algorithms that are believed to be secure against quantum computers with many qubits): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-quantum_cryptography This could serve as the basis for new TLS cipher suites, and would not require any revision to hardware of computers

Re: Quantum Supremacy

On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 9:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​ > Bitcoin, and digital money, will need quantum encryption. > ​ There are ​ ​ quantum encryption ​ ​ protocols that even a quantum computer couldn't break, they would be as secure as the laws of physics themselves, but

Re: Quantum Supremacy

On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 8:23:42 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > Bitcoin, and digital money, will need quantum encryption. Some of them can > be failed, but only in theory. Well, the last time I readon on this, but > the filed is exploding. > > I guess that *classical* teleportation

Re: Quantum Supremacy

g-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com> Sent: Thu, Nov 30, 2017 10:20 am Subject: Quantum Supremacy For the first time a Quantum Computer has solved a problem that a conventional computer can not, actually 2 different Quantum Computers did and there is a paper from each team in the i

Re: Quantum Supremacy

@googlegroups.com > > Sent: Thu, Nov 30, 2017 10:20 am > Subject: Quantum Supremacy > > For the first time a Quantum Computer has solved a problem that a > conventional computer can not, actually 2 different Quantum Computers did > and there is a paper from each team in t

Re: Quantum Supremacy

g-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com> Sent: Thu, Nov 30, 2017 10:20 am Subject: Quantum Supremacy For the first time a Quantum Computer has solved a problem that a conventional computer can not, actually 2 different Quantum Computers did and there is a paper from each team in the issue of

Re: Quantum Supremacy

Wow! Bitcoin passing 10K and now this. Two things that happened this week that might have a place in the history books... You are right, the latter might eventually invalidate the former. Best, Telmo. On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 4:13 PM, John Clark wrote: > For the first time

Quantum Supremacy

For the first time a Quantum Computer has solved a problem that a conventional computer can not, actually 2 different Quantum Computers did and there is a paper from each team in the issue of the journal Nature that came out yesterday: