https://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyle/science/lockheed-s...
Which isn't to the project was bad, but boy does a lot of stuff like this get announced and then people start making victory lap posts as though it's already succeeded.
https://youtu.be/Dlsa9EBKDGI?t=14m19s
The sim case looks downright dismal when "coming to fruition" accounts for parallel innovation in the "classical" realm (which, additionally, like the tortoise, does not need investors)
lukan•8mo ago
Looking forward towards it. But I am sceptical how much value exactly was added, but I lack the insight here.
gsf_emergency•8mo ago
The whole industry exists to prove Feynman, uh, consistent[2]. Didn't he say nobody understands quantum, but didn't he also claim that quantum computing can be useful?
[0]https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611976014.5
Although Scott is the most honest of them all
[1]3b1b was in good company, not sure about now?
https://youtu.be/Dlsa9EBKDGI
[2]he demonstrated that not fooling oneself was of the utmost importance by continuing to provide the prime example of fooling oneself?
fxwin•8mo ago
gsf_emergency•8mo ago
Scott's a careful guy so he skipped out saying explicitly what's "quantum" about Grover, only citing published lemmas where the question (obliquely) begs it.
Investigate in particular the section on open problems, where he can afford to be more forthcoming.
Here he mentions tight bounds on the "quantum depth" are unknown-- how about the classical? (Note Scott's repeated uh judicious use of quotes around quantum)
No royal road to (quantum) geometry, but nobody says out loud that there easily exists tyrannical(/classical) ones (:(
So,sorry, but I hope to have pointed in you in the general direction.
E: Feynman's level is a good threshold. What I cannot create, I do not understand