<story><title>Quantum Supremacy Using a Programmable Superconducting Processor</title><url>https://ai.googleblog.com/2019/10/quantum-supremacy-using-programmable.html</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>hamilyon2</author><text>The margin between 200 seconds and 2.5 days still exists</text></item><item><author>oliveremberton</author><text>Interesting refutation by IBM here:&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;In the preprint, it is argued that their device reached “quantum supremacy” and that “a state-of-the-art supercomputer would require approximately 10,000 years to perform the equivalent task.” We argue that an ideal simulation of the same task can be performed on a classical system in 2.5 days and with far greater fidelity.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.ibm.com&amp;#x2F;blogs&amp;#x2F;research&amp;#x2F;2019&amp;#x2F;10&amp;#x2F;on-quantum-supremacy&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.ibm.com&amp;#x2F;blogs&amp;#x2F;research&amp;#x2F;2019&amp;#x2F;10&amp;#x2F;on-quantum-suprem...&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>photon-torpedo</author><text>As far as I understand, the 2.5 days classical simulation gives you the total wavefunction, from which you can read the probability distribution. You only need to run it once. It&amp;#x27;s not clear to me whether the 200 seconds quantum computation is for getting (or rather sampling) the probability distribution, or for just one measurement. My point is, the classical simulation actually gives you much more data than the quantum computation -- you get the actual full probabilty distribution, not just an approximated sample of it (guess that&amp;#x27;s why IBM claims &amp;quot;higher fidelity&amp;quot;).</text></comment>
<story><title>Quantum Supremacy Using a Programmable Superconducting Processor</title><url>https://ai.googleblog.com/2019/10/quantum-supremacy-using-programmable.html</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>hamilyon2</author><text>The margin between 200 seconds and 2.5 days still exists</text></item><item><author>oliveremberton</author><text>Interesting refutation by IBM here:&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;In the preprint, it is argued that their device reached “quantum supremacy” and that “a state-of-the-art supercomputer would require approximately 10,000 years to perform the equivalent task.” We argue that an ideal simulation of the same task can be performed on a classical system in 2.5 days and with far greater fidelity.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.ibm.com&amp;#x2F;blogs&amp;#x2F;research&amp;#x2F;2019&amp;#x2F;10&amp;#x2F;on-quantum-supremacy&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.ibm.com&amp;#x2F;blogs&amp;#x2F;research&amp;#x2F;2019&amp;#x2F;10&amp;#x2F;on-quantum-suprem...&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>ewalk153</author><text>I think that’s where the&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; and with far greater fidelity&lt;p&gt;comes into play.</text></comment>