Comment on: "Classical signature of quantum annealing" — mentioned by mitmatt

Sat, 29 Jun 2013 12:37:10 GMT

The USC group has a response to Smolin and Smith which explains how some quantitative features are still best explained by a simulated quantum annealer: http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.5837. So there's still some potential for evidence of quantum effects (though "maybe doing something nonclassical" is a far cry from all the marketing talk, especially since annealing with stoquastic Hamiltonions with a fixed topology is already a far cry from any known-to-be-useful quantum computing model).

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Comment on: "Classical signature of quantum annealing" — HN submission

Mon, 27 May 2013 05:48:21 GMT

Comment on: "Classical signature of quantum annealing"

2 points; 0 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

Comment on: "Classical signature of quantum annealing" · HackerPapers discussions

Comment on: "Classical signature of quantum annealing" — mentioned by mitmatt

Comment on: "Classical signature of quantum annealing" — HN submission