You're viewing papers too quickly. Please wait a moment.<br>This helps keep the archive available for everyone.

Quick Navigation

Topics

Open Quantum Systems Decoherence Superconducting Qubits

Comment on "Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor"

arXiv
Authors: Karl Svozil

Year

2019

Paper ID

15089

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

63

Citations

N/A

Abstract

Even if Google AI's Sycamore processor is efficient for the particular task it has been designed for it fails to deliver universal computational capacity. Furthermore, even classical devices implementing transverse homoclinic orbits realize exponential speedups with respect to universal classical as well as quantum computations. Moreover, relative to the validity of quantum mechanics, there already exist quantum oracles which violate the Church-Turing thesis.

Why This Paper Matters

  • This paper contributes to the Superconducting Qubits research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
  • It adds a 2019 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
  • Even if Google AI's Sycamore processor is efficient for the particular task it has been designed for it fails to deliver universal computational capacity.

Paper Tools

Become a member to use research tools

Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.

Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share Cite This Paper Copy URL Compare Copy DOI Add to Reading List Category Correction Request

References & Citation Signals

Local Citation Graph (Related-Paper Links)

Current Paper #15089 #68449 Scale-Invariant Open Quantum Sy... #68437 Transition-state lattice modes ... #68470 A fluxonium qubit-based hybrid ... #68456 Analytic Properties of the Jost...

External citation index: OpenAlex citation signal

Community Reactions

Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.

Score: 0
Likes: 0 Dislikes: 0

Sign in to react to this paper.

Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)

Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)

No written reviews yet.