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 <[email protected] > <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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a150afdf-6899-414d-bdbb-507d3f1f4ff9%40googlegroups.com.
