![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dmmarxiv.org/abs/2208.09964
What he is saying about Feynman's exploration of negative probabilities in the first two pages seems to be particularly interesting (and still quite inconclusive).
The good comment on the current state of quantum computing is in scottaaronson.blog/?p=6670:
"the only fully convincing and clear demonstration that something is possible is to do it, as with the Wright brothers or the Trinity nuclear test. In other sense, though, we’ve known the “strategy” since the 1990s. It’s just that the fault-tolerance theorem called for gate fidelities 5-6 orders of magnitude better than anything achievable at the time. In the 25 years since, about 3 of those orders of magnitude have been achieved, so it doesn’t take any great imagination to foresee that the remainder could be as well."
What he is saying about Feynman's exploration of negative probabilities in the first two pages seems to be particularly interesting (and still quite inconclusive).
The good comment on the current state of quantum computing is in scottaaronson.blog/?p=6670:
"the only fully convincing and clear demonstration that something is possible is to do it, as with the Wright brothers or the Trinity nuclear test. In other sense, though, we’ve known the “strategy” since the 1990s. It’s just that the fault-tolerance theorem called for gate fidelities 5-6 orders of magnitude better than anything achievable at the time. In the 25 years since, about 3 of those orders of magnitude have been achieved, so it doesn’t take any great imagination to foresee that the remainder could be as well."
