Leveraging Secondary Storage to Simulate Deep 54-qubit Sycamore Circuits · HackerPapers discussions

Leveraging Secondary Storage to Simulate Deep 54-qubit Sycamore Circuits — mentioned by pera

Wed, 11 Dec 2024 14:04:06 GMT

> If I take the Willow announcement at face value (in particular, the QEC claims) [...] Considering that Google's 2019 claim of quantum supremacy was, at the very least, severely overestimated (https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1910.09534) I would wait a little bit before making any decisions based on the Willow announcement.

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

Leveraging Secondary Storage to Simulate Deep 54-qubit Sycamore Circuits — mentioned by throw149102

Wed, 07 Jul 2021 21:27:36 GMT

My understanding is that this simulation of random quantum circuits is already known to be hard in a theoretical sense[1], and there is no argument that a classical computer could compete with a quantum computer much bigger than 50-60ish qubits. And that arguments against those previous papers has more to do with classical optimizations such as using disk w/ RAM rather than just RAM alone. For example, take this line from IBM's refutation of Google's Quantum Supremacy experiment: "64 PiB of disk space are required for 53-qubit circuits, and 128 PiB for 54-qubit circuits. Both fit within the…

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

Leveraging Secondary Storage to Simulate Deep 54-qubit Sycamore Circuits — mentioned by ethn

Tue, 29 Dec 2020 06:12:43 GMT

The Quantum Computer scientists Scott Aaronson and Gil Kalai have casted doubt on this result[1][2]. Also good to note is that Kalai casted doubt on the original Google supremacy result. There are now classical algorithms 6 orders of magnitude faster than the Google quantum experiment[3]. 1.https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=5122 2.https://gilkalai.wordpress.com/2020/12/06/photonic-huge-quan... 3.https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.09534

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

Leveraging Secondary Storage to Simulate Deep 54-qubit Sycamore Circuits — mentioned by d0ne

Wed, 23 Oct 2019 15:12:10 GMT

If a worst case to simulate on a classical computer is 2.5 days (per IBM's blog) then they should either: 1. Actually preform the experiment per their approach, compare the results, and provide tangible proof in the coming days. or 2. Retract their claims. In either case, exciting times ahead. [Edit: Yes, I read their published paper[1] which only claims it is possible to achieve and does not perform the same experiment. 1. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1910.09534.pdf]

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

Leveraging Secondary Storage to Simulate Deep 54-qubit Sycamore Circuits — HN submission

Tue, 22 Oct 2019 08:33:03 GMT

Leveraging secondary storage to simulate deep 54-qubit sycamore sircuits

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