-
-
Replying to @MelMitchell1
In some theoretical sense that's right - it's easy to simulate classical circuits using quantum circuits. In a practical sense, if you want to add two 10,000 digit numbers, it's probably best to use a classical computer: you won't have neatly the overhead involved in QC.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @michael_nielsen
Thanks, this is what i thought. It depends whether "better at" is referring to efficiency or universality. That seems to keep getting confused in discussions I see on Twitter.
@seanmcarroll@no_scooters1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
It's not really universality, so much as what notion of efficiency you mean. For asymptotic complexity, ignoring polylogarithmic overheads (for error-correction & differences in implementation difficult), QCs will always be at least as efficient, & sometimes far more so.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
"asymptotic complexity" is the spherical cow of computer science
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Yeah. But often it's what you want. Shor's algorithm (& others) justify a very, very large overhead in the difficulty in implementing a single gate.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Agreed. and spherical cows are responsible for much if not all progress in science!
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
Well, they're probably not personally responsible!
(Somewhere Paul Krugman has a really nice pair of essays, paeans to the value of simple models, which your tweet has reminded me to reread...)pic.twitter.com/GDqgIfaMp0
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.