Google Claims Breakthrough in Quantum Computing

How do you know if the answer is correct if you have to wait 10,000 years to check it?

Gut feeling.

Make the computer show it's work!

How do you know if the answer is correct if you have to wait 10,000 years to check it?

I don't know if it applies in this case, but quite often, it is much easier to check if an answer is right than to find the answer in the first place.

A classic example is factoring a very large number which is the product of two large primes. A standard computer has no choice but to start multiplying pairs of prime numbers less than the square root of the number until the factors are found. But given an answer, a pair of primes, it is very easy to multiply to verify that the answer is correct.

This factoring problem, incidentally, can be solved on a quantum computer using Shor's Algorithm in a much shorter time.

I understand that very well could be the case, but I like to have fun with the words in the vein of the late, great George Carlin. I loved the way he could skewer the ordinary things in life that we never even question.

Quantum supremacy, I think, means supremacy of a Quantum computer over a conventional computer for a particular application. It doesn't mean my Quantum computer is better/bigger/faster...etc. than yours.

"In quantum computing, quantum supremacy is the potential ability of devices to solve problems that classical computers practically cannot. ... Shor's algorithm for factoring integers, which runs in polynomial time on a quantum computer, provides such a superpolynomial speedup over the best known classical algorithm."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_supremacy#targetText=In%20quantum%20computing%2C%20quantum%20supremacy,that%20classical%20computers%20practically%20cannot.&targetText=Shor's%20algorithm%20for%20factoring%20integers,the%20best%20known%20classical%20algorithm.

IBM disagrees with Google:

vice.com/en_us/article/vb5jxd/why-ibm-thinks-google-hasnt-achieved-quantum-supremacy

If the reason for the high speed is the dual-state condition in addition to 0 and 1 states, it seems like that could be simulated in software. I once saw the older binary computers simulated in BASIC software for the Texas Instruments TI-99/4A computer.

Here is someone doing the quantum simulation I talked about above:

ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8638597

That's not a paper on quantum simulation. It is a paper on the theoretical math of an actual quantum computer that uses digitally switched analog circuitry. (A very interesting read, Thank You ) This is a theoretical paper. It appears that an actual computer has not been built for testing. Lots of things work in theory but not in practice.

This might be the circuit topology that Google used in its quantum computing claim.

This extremely fast computational approach still suffers from the same verification problem.

This does remind me of one of my favorite quotes of the late Yogi Beara:

"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is."

That link was given in another forum after the person said this:

"At our university, since 2018, we have a working analog quantum emulator:"

This link was also there:

quantamagazine.org/graduate-student-solves-quantum-verification-problem-

and this one:

quantamagazine.org/teenager-finds-classical-alternative-to-quantum-recommendation-algorithm-20180731/

That's great to hear that this was built. I disagree that this approach makes a quantum emulator. I believe it to be a different but valid approach to making actual quantum qubits.

I'm also glad to see people are looking into the enormously complex task of verifying a quantum calculation. I hope her doctoral presentation last year does turn out to be a method to verify quantum computations.

This reminds me of the lithium battery race.

Claims are cheap.

How will we ever know when superiority is actually achieved?

Current Wars is now showing. A blast from the past may help put this is perspective.

This reminds me of Douglas Adams paradoxical answer of "42". If the only way to validate this result is with a computer operating for 10,000 years how do we know that this is output is valid?

Well now we only have to wait 3 minutes and 20 seconds. That result can be compared to the IBM machine.

Yeah and what if they disagree?

Then you'd have to wonder if the quantum method is flawed, or you could try using the latest of HP's supercomputers:

sciencealert.com/hp-s-new-supercomputer-is-up-to-8-000-times-faster-than-existing-pcs

Yes, one should wonder if the quantum method is flawed. One should wonder whenever any mystery that baffles many theoreticians is condensed into a echo chamber of less than 20 paragraph synopsizes.

I was hoping somebody would divine the nuance of my point after some careful thought but I guess I was to obtuse. My apologies.

Just because a quantum computer quickly finds an answer to a problem does not mean that the answer is unique or even correct without verification and comprehension.

42!

"I always thought something was fundamentally wrong with the universe."