IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Quantum computing practically impossible

Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> Thu, 05 November 2020 21:33 UTC

Return-Path: <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2687E3A17FE for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 13:33:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.145
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.145 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.247, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e6xLdF_QmieS for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 13:33:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp [131.112.32.132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id B60323A1A65 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 13:33:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 62666 invoked from network); 5 Nov 2020 21:13:26 -0000
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (131.112.32.132) by necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp with SMTP; 5 Nov 2020 21:13:26 -0000
Subject: Re: Quantum computing practically impossible
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <1234528e-ef29-e81e-6c47-7bd4abb6fd53@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <CAMm+LwhoK5RTYUA2-F9a7a-HfMNmjmUOwf=zDdAT9t7VXsUpXQ@mail.gmail.com> <20201105064427.GV1464@straasha.imrryr.org> <C088C970-C8DE-4B3F-BD54-B1E8763CE949@strayalpha.com>
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <782c3e57-ee9f-cbc5-74c0-1b3e42b43590@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2020 06:32:52 +0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <C088C970-C8DE-4B3F-BD54-B1E8763CE949@strayalpha.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/j-CJNSrjK3oal5Lafu2pOMeAW1I>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2020 21:33:09 -0000

Sorry for the previous mail sent before editing.

Joseph Touch wrote:

> Noise isn’t the only focal point of skepticism; at least one other is
> full-entanglement scale, which has essentially remained static for
> decades (8-way recently leaping to 10-way).

It was considered that, once certain accuracy is obtained,
recursive application of quantum error correction can
increase the scale.

But, it is based on wrong assumption that entangled states are
just as noisy/fragile as unentangled ones, though each
unentangled term consisting an entangled state is
disturbed by noise independently, which makes the
state a lot more noisy/fragile than unentangled ones.

					Masataka Ohta

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email