On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 11:23:32PM -0500, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> It is my understanding of the work on Quantum error correction that it is
> correcting errors in the measurement of quantum states rather than trying
> to compensate for decoherence so the base assumption of the paper seems to
> be off.
No. That's not the case. The scepticism around in principle
scalability of QCs is in fact centered on whether environmental noise
can be corrected in principle or not. Much has been written about this
by Gil Kalai, who has a long-running debata with Scott Aaronson on this
issue. Neither side has conceded. The Google "quantum supremacy"
announcement has given the pro-QC camp some reason for new optimism, but
Gil Kalai is disputing the conclusions of that experiment.
Time will tell who's right. The devil is in very difficult details of
the noise models that the experts don't agree on.
--
Viktor.
