# James Wootton114

Jul 14 2017 10:02 UTC
James Wootton scited Open Quantum Assembly Language
May 28 2017 06:43 UTC
May 26 2017 07:32 UTC
May 22 2017 11:04 UTC
May 22 2017 10:49 UTC

There are tasks we could use quantum computers for that would be practically impossible otherwise. And there are tasks that we could do a bit faster on a quantum computer, but it would still be reasonable to use a classical one. 'advantage' could mean either of those. I think it's the absolute dominance over classical computers in the former that people are trying to invoke with 'supremacy'.

The need to use such tainted words is probably an inevitable consequence of trying to explain that one thing is so much better than another. Those words will have been used before in contexts that we don't agree with. Maybe 'transcendence' gets away with it by having kinda spiritual connotations, but that probably makes it a bad fit for science.

Anyways, 'advantage' seems to be the primary option besides supremacy and it isn't too bad. My reservations with it aren't strong enough to try and champion anything else.

May 22 2017 10:27 UTC

'Supremity' could also be an option. It is a word, though a bit archaic. It has the same meanings, but without the baggage. It probably wouldn't be as readily understandable as 'advantage', but 'advantage' doesn't quite mean the right thing.

On the other hand, we could just say "quantum computers outperform classical computers" instead of trying to come up with a fancy *Adjective*$^{ TM}$.

May 09 2017 09:41 UTC
May 09 2017 09:40 UTC
Apr 18 2017 08:29 UTC

Interesting to start getting perspectives from actual end users. But this does focus massively on quantum annealing, rather than a 'true' universal and fault-tolerant QC.

Apr 07 2017 07:26 UTC
Apr 06 2017 08:45 UTC
Apr 04 2017 08:36 UTC
Feb 28 2017 14:11 UTC
Feb 28 2017 08:54 UTC
James Wootton commented on A loophole in quantum error correction

I think I was mostly reacting to where he tries to sell the importance of the work.

>Fault tolerant theorems show that an arbitrary good precision can be obtained using a limited amount of hardware...we unveil the role of an implicit assumption made in these mathematical theorems: the ability to perform quantum measurements with infinite precision.

Feb 27 2017 13:10 UTC
James Wootton commented on A loophole in quantum error correction

Do any fault-tolerance theorems claim to hold for small codes without repeated measurement, as is the case in these supposed counter examples?