google quantum computer

[shrapnel]

(Without quoting anyone) it never ceases to amaze me how many ol'-stick-in-the-muds with closed minds there are, that too in a COMPUTER Chess Forum !
When Charles Babbage invented the first computer in the early 19th Century, I'm sure the Ancestors of most Englishmen here shook their Heads wisely and told each that it was just a load of Rubbish !

[Zenmastur]

(Without quoting anyone) it never ceases to amaze me how many ol'-stick-in-the-muds with closed minds there are, that too in a COMPUTER Chess Forum !
When Charles Babbage invented the first computer in the early 19th Century, I'm sure the Ancestors of most Englishmen here shook their Heads wisely and told each that it was just a load of Rubbish !

Are you implying that anyone that doesn't share your opinion of GOOGLE's PR stunts is somehow deficient in their ability to reason about quantum computing?

I wonder how many “great” inventions (as touted by their inventors) turned out to be total rubbish. I suspect the number is uncountable. Few can name even one of the many, many worthless idea's (or claims as in this case) because they rarely gain any notoriety. But there are surly orders of magnitude more claims that have turned out to be, but wasted breath, than those that were actual useful much less revolutionary.

Needless to say I'm not impressed nor swayed by your weak example and ad hominem attacks on unnamed persons.

So far, you haven't made a “real” argument. If you want to take a stab at it, be my guest.

Regards,

Zenmastur

[jp]

Unfortunately, chess is MUCH too big a problem to model on today's quantum computers.

Step #1 is to create a quantum chess algorithm.

See viewtopic.php?f=2&t=71167

My comments there are still true of course.

[towforce]

Are you implying that anyone that doesn't share your opinion of GOOGLE's PR stunts is somehow deficient in their ability to reason about quantum computing?

Granted, there are people around making false claims. It seems unlikely to me that Google would make a press release claiming quantum speedup if they hadn't actually done it, though.

[shrapnel]

I wonder how many “great” inventions (as touted by their inventors) turned out to be total rubbish. I suspect the number is uncountable. Few can name

I rest my Case, and FYI Google isn't just any Inventor.

[Zenmastur]

Are you implying that anyone that doesn't share your opinion of GOOGLE's PR stunts is somehow deficient in their ability to reason about quantum computing?

Granted, there are people around making false claims. It seems unlikely to me that Google would make a press release claiming quantum speedup if they hadn't actually done it, though.

I think it's the magnitude of the "claim" that is in question.

Unsurprisingly, IBM, the company that operates the supercomputer that Google claims to have beaten, and a key quantum computer competitor, is disputing Google’s claims. In a blog post published pre-emptively on Monday, the company said that the same task could be performed on a classical system in just 2.5 days, rather than the 10,000 years that Google is claiming. IBM says that Google “failed to fully account for plentiful disk storage” when estimating how long its traditional supercomputer would take to perform the calculation.

The dispute about the claim seems to be about more than a 6-orders of magnitude difference between what Google is claiming and what IBM is claiming. Not exactly a small discrepancy! Since the paper has just become available for scrutiny I don't think it's prudent to base your opinion on a disputed and unsubstantiated claim regardless of who is making it. After all, IBM is a well respected company and “should" know the capabilities of a machine they built! I.E. How likely is it that IBM is lying vice Google puffing up their accomplishments (i.e lying) to be greater than what they actually are.

Regards,

Zenmastur

[Zenmastur]

I wonder how many “great” inventions (as touted by their inventors) turned out to be total rubbish. I suspect the number is uncountable. Few can name

I rest my Case, and FYI Google isn't just any Inventor.

You don't have a case to rest!

[shrapnel]

After all, IBM is a well respected company and “should" know the capabilities of a machine they built!

I'm sure there were plenty of "well-respected" Englishmen too, who disparaged Charles Babbages invention and mocked him !

[towforce]

I think it's the magnitude of the "claim" that is in question.

The underlying problem is that the thing being measured is not constant: if you hate quantum supremacy, you can build a faster computer or work relentlessly on the puzzle algorithm. Whose idea was this silly definition of quantum supremacy?

[Leo]

(Without quoting anyone) it never ceases to amaze me how many ol'-stick-in-the-muds with closed minds there are, that too in a COMPUTER Chess Forum !
When Charles Babbage invented the first computer in the early 19th Century, I'm sure the Ancestors of most Englishmen here shook their Heads wisely and told each that it was just a load of Rubbish !

Are you implying that anyone that doesn't share your opinion of GOOGLE's PR stunts is somehow deficient in their ability to reason about quantum computing?

I wonder how many “great” inventions (as touted by their inventors) turned out to be total rubbish. I suspect the number is uncountable. Few can name even one of the many, many worthless idea's (or claims as in this case) because they rarely gain any notoriety. But there are surly orders of magnitude more claims that have turned out to be, but wasted breath, than those that were actual useful much less revolutionary.

Needless to say I'm not impressed nor swayed by your weak example and ad hominem attacks on unnamed persons.

So far, you haven't made a “real” argument. If you want to take a stab at it, be my guest.

Regards,

Zenmastur

Everyone stop the presses. Google has an announcement to make.