<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Quantum Computers for Weather and Climate Prediction: The Good, the Bad and the Noisy · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2210.17460/</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/2210.17460/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Quantum Computers for Weather and Climate Prediction: The Good, the Bad and the Noisy — mentioned by JamesianP</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33487922</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2210.17460:33487922</guid><pubDate>Sun, 06 Nov 2022 01:40:22 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Yeah the &amp;quot;superset&amp;quot; perspective seems like you could end up cheating, implementing the equivalent of classical logic and probably much more slowly than a classical computer could do it. I googled around and found this research though, which does propose using a nonlinear quantum system: https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.17460. It doesn&amp;#x27;t really claim the issue is solved.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2210.17460/"&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>
