Read my tweet. I'm talking about a working computer, not an isolated qubit.
-
We use this system for chemical dynamics and quantum control, but that data was on HW benchmarking But let's be clear - you're not discussing in good faith any longer. You will keep parsing and reframing until you feel you were right all along.
So you admit that you haven't actually computed anything with this. My statement is crystal clear; the parsing, reframing and bad faith are yours. (Also, it's not hard to figure out who has a vested interest in obfuscating the reality here.)
-
-
We compute chemical dynamics with this hardware. It is a functioning QC. The data sets I showed you are characterization of our core hardware. 9s coherence. 1e-4 level errors. 10qubit max register we operate. Next you'll say "but that's not useful scale" or something
-
And now you conclude with an ad hominem because in addition to my purely academic work I also run a company. I'm committed to being truthful about our field and have highlighted nuance. You accept none. Thanks, goodbye.
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.