Quantum Supersampling [video]

This is a <i>great</i> talk. Like, I am going to be linking people to this for years. It mentions the basics, goes over an example use, and just generally has the perfect amount of &quot;this could be cool&quot;.<p>The one thing that bothered me, in the whole talk, is when he said that a 10-qubit circuit was beyond anything we could run right now. Simulators like Liquid [1] or even my browser-drag-and-drop toy Quirk [2] would easily run that circuit. In hindsight it&#x27;s obvious that he meant <i>on an actual quantum computer</i>.<p>1: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;stationq.github.io&#x2F;Liquid&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;stationq.github.io&#x2F;Liquid&#x2F;</a><p>2: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;algorithmicassertions.com&#x2F;quirk" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;algorithmicassertions.com&#x2F;quirk</a>

This is very interesting, but I don&#x27;t understand many things he said.<p>is there a good introductory material for writing code for quantum computers and how quantum computers work?<p>also is there a way to evaluate the performance boost with the simulator?

18:17 is when it gets really good<p>i think referring to it as a lookup table is self confounding<p>the whole thing still regretfully relies on the random<p>periodicity is the way to go but periodicity in place of the look up table<p>i was stunned to see the graph at 19:53<p>to come by that graph through such a probabilistic method is validating<p>those etched silicon photonic quantum gates shown following 23:14 are awesome<p>the variable temperature controlled index of refraction phase operation reminded me of a previous link using optics to solve np-complete problems(o) and someone compared it to a sleep sort<p>when he put up the results at 22:14 comparing with monte carlo i wondered what the time difference was for each calculated result<p>i understand that energy requirements for the kind of state control necessary, like the low temperatures, the 2 degree kelvin quoted at 26:53, for single infared photon detection, make these physical quantum computers impractical when compared to classical computations like the monte carlo example.. he also talks a bit about decoherence issues as an unfortunate race saying &#x27;so long to finish the program&#x27; how long is so long?<p>though the clear consistency between the classical and physical quantum computer results is definitely more than &#x27;almost interesting&#x27; i do wonder about what time was spent to get each result.. the goal is to optimise for speed, right?<p>the simulator(i) is really cool<p>(o) <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=12362044" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=12362044</a><p>(i) <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;qcengine.com&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;qcengine.com&#x2F;</a>

This is awesome, I think I learned more about how QC works in this one talk than in everything I&#x27;ve seen and read up till now. What the gates actually are, what they do, and their relation to real bits and qbits