State preservation by repetitive error detection in a superconducting quantum circuit · HackerPapers discussions

State preservation by repetitive error detection in a superconducting quantum circuit — mentioned by Strilanc

Mon, 11 Aug 2025 13:36:15 GMT

That paper is hilarious, and is correct that there's plenty of shit to make fun of... but there's also progress. I recommend watching Sam Jacques' talk from PQCrypto 2025 [0]. It would be silly to delay PQC adoption because of focusing on the irrelevant bad papers. In the past ten years, on the theory side, the expected cost of cryptographically relevant quantum factoring has dropped by 1000x [1][2]. On the hardware side, fault tolerance demonstrations have gone from repetition code error rates of 1% error per round [3] to 0.00000001% error per round [fig3a of 4], with full quantum codes…

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

State preservation by repetitive error detection in a superconducting quantum circuit — mentioned by Strilanc

Mon, 17 Feb 2025 23:13:46 GMT

Using the largest number factored as a benchmark for progress in quantum computing is like evaluating floor(f(0)) = 0 and floor(f(1)) = 0 and concluding f(x) = 0. You can't distinguish f(x) = 0 from f(x) = x/2 from f(x) = e^x/3 when your test is too coarse. If you want to see the progress in quantum computing today, pay attention to component reliability. For example, in 2014, the best rep code run on a quantum computer had a 1% error rate per round [1]. In 2024, it was 0.00000001% and it had become possible to run full quantum codes with a 0.2% error rate per round [2]. If it takes another…

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

State preservation by repetitive error detection in a superconducting quantum circuit — mentioned by gaze

Mon, 21 Jan 2019 18:42:09 GMT

1) https://www.nature.com/articles/nature18949 https://arxiv.org/abs/1411.7403 2. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6277/1068 seems like it might satisfy your requirements. It doesn't seem to use the answer in its calculation, but I'm not sure.

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