I can’t agree these numbers are correct nor can’t I agree they ran an algorithm because I have to trust an article, there is literally no way for ME (or you) to verify the claims of this article w...
Gotta rewind here: QuEra/Harvard publishes a result, peer reviewed in Nature, signed off on by researchers at MIT, NIST, U of Maryland and Caltech, but you don't agree the numbers should be believed, no do you agree they ran the algorithm they said they did. I'm not talking about the conclusions, just the raw data here.
What about the earlier experiments by Microsoft + Quantinuum (trapped Ions), or Microsoft + Atom Computing (neutral), or Zurich, or any of the others, are we accepting any of the raw data from those?
I need to figure out where the bottom is here. If there is no bottom then it's just solipsists discussing sociology.
What about the earlier experiments by Microsoft + Quantinuum (trapped Ions), or Microsoft + Atom Computing (neutral), or Zurich, or any of the others, are we accepting any of the raw data from those?
I need to figure out where the bottom is here. If there is no bottom then it's just solipsists discussing sociology.
1