codekilla

Remember, what we are talking about is expressly using the features of quantum theory, superposition, entanglement, etc as a computing resource. This is not at all the same thing as when people say things like 'we design computers with quantum theory' or the like.

It's true that there is a distinction between a quantum computer build using a universal set of gates(what you probably mean), and one that uses the adiabatic model to carry out computations. The former, is difficult to construct due to decoherence, while the latter carries out computations in the ground state, neatly sidestepping the issue. Saying the D-wave computer is not a quantum computer simply because it does not use a universal set of gates is patently false, it uses a different, more restricted model true, but one that still exploits the resources of the quantum realm to carry out computations. It's also true that theoretically, the adiabatic model is less developed, and thus supremacy arguments are more difficult to make, but as long as quantum effects(i.e. superposition, entanglement, etc) are used to carry out computations, it is a quantum computer.

> The last time I checked (which was a few years ago)

A lot has changed.

more people are starting to appreciate that AGIish stuff is actually really, really hard.

The simplest quantum algorithm shows an exponential speedup over the best classical solution, this, of course, is the toy example often used in QC texts of determining whether or not a function is constant or balanced(Deutsch).

But, as John Preskill points out...this is not even the really interesting thing here. Quantum simulation actually lies outside the class of NP, because there is no efficient way to verify the solution of such a simulation.

This area is where quantum computers, in my opinion, are the most interesting, we will be able to do things we simply cannot on a classical computer....and for the record..most people commenting should know that D-WAVE operates using the Adiabatic model, and is not a universal quantum computer.

wow, fox masks....the killer app for AR, can't wait!!

Understood. It's true that this type of thing could incur additional expenses and effort, I think though that it is truly worth the effort. It's going to take a push from the top to create a community around the idea, a community that can distill the idea to those that do not understand it. I really strongly believe that everything needs to be in the same place, the tooling needs to be good(perfect formatting of both code and symbols), etc. I admire projects like distill, but I can't help but think that an article like this suffers from what I will term 'the symbol grounding problem'(yes a theft from classical AI). When you write an article like this, for some people it is incomprehensible because the symbols used are not grounded in concrete numerical examples. It's been my experience(and just look at some of the comments on this thread), that when you don't provide many analogies and examples of concrete computations to illustrate the inner workings of what the mathematical symbols encode, a very significant portion of those reading do not actually take away any understanding. I truly do not want this to be the case, and I must strongly advocate that building infrastructure around helping the community be able to pitch in is absolutely critical. It should not be only on the author to take on the burden, with a community it can be done much better. It's worth it to build something where you can publish an article and by default it is expected that questions will be asked, and answers will be provided. I work in academia at a technical institute you have definitely heard of and I just want to stress this point as much as possible, I see this problem every day, all day. If someone at distill reads this, please consider it carefully.

I disagree. The most useful replies can be upvoted to deal with noise, and using mathematical formulas to help explain responses is absolutely crucial. I can't tell you how helpful it has been to be looking at an obscure proof, post a question to Math Overflow, and have the answer explained in an intuitive way with reference to the symbols and notation used.

These articles on distill I believe could greatly benefit from this. Let the community help distill.

It would be really, really great if you could somehow hook this up to Discourse so people could comment on and ask questions about the article. Allowing people to ask questions and having others answer like MathOverflow would I think bring a lot more clarity. Many different kinds of people want to understand material like this but may need the math unpacked in different ways.