<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Quantum Computational Supremacy · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1809.07442/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1809.07442/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Quantum Computational Supremacy — mentioned by someguy12342</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21044364</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1809.07442:21044364</guid><pubDate>Sun, 22 Sep 2019 22:22:54 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;No, the distribution is thought to be hard for any classical algorithm (this is still being worked on - there are still ongoing theory development for showing it is harder and harder), and by extension, any classical process. Yes, the problem is very contrived - the distribution being sampled is given by the distribution you get from sampling from a randomly sampled quantum circuit. Of course this is easy on a quantum computer because you can just throw on the randomly chosen gates and measure it. I don&amp;#x27;t think it will be very useful in a application sense. This problem was designed for the…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1809.07442/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>quant-ph</category></item></channel></rss>
