I’m not claiming the results are faked. What I’m rejecting is the ontological claim being made about what those “96 logical qubits” are and what their scaling implies.
Yes, I accept that the ...
>does that experiment demonstrate what they think it demonstrates.
Putting aside what the implications might be do we agree on the below facts:
- They use 96 logical qubits
- They ran fault-tolerant algorithms that used all of them
- Error rates actually improved as the system scaled (for example from their paper, using a distance-5 code instead of distance-3 roughly halved the logical error rate per round, a 2.14× reduction)
Can we agree those numbers are correct, and then after get to the implications?
Putting aside what the implications might be do we agree on the below facts:
- They use 96 logical qubits
- They ran fault-tolerant algorithms that used all of them
- Error rates actually improved as the system scaled (for example from their paper, using a distance-5 code instead of distance-3 roughly halved the logical error rate per round, a 2.14× reduction)
Can we agree those numbers are correct, and then after get to the implications?
1