
Scientists pinpoint the singularity for quantum computers - jonbaer
https://phys.org/news/2017-10-scientists-singularity-quantum.html
======
Strilanc
Referring to the point where quantum computers are better at one esoteric
thing that's not even useful as a "singularity" is laughably atrociously
ridiculous. The actual relevant technical term is "quantum supremacy" [1],
which is _already_ misleading (implies complete dominance but actually refers
to not being completely dominated). There's no need to make it worse!

Also, the theorists didn't "pinpoint" anything. They showed that quantum
supremacy via boson sampling was harder than previously thought. They improved
the classical simulation algorithm, raising the bar quantum computers will
have to jump over.

I guess popsci has standards for terribleness that just weren't being met?
They couldn't pick a merely semi-terrible title, like "Scientists raise the
quantum supremacy bar"?

1: [https://arxiv.org/abs/1203.5813](https://arxiv.org/abs/1203.5813)

------
nthompson
I think the title should be "Efficient classical algorithm for boson sampling
discovered".

I don't get the whole singularity thing.

~~~
sp332
A singularity originally referred to a single point where (the mathematical
description of) a field has infinite strength. For example, a black hole that
had collapsed to an infinitely dense, infinitely small point. But lots of
people now are referring to the event horizon around the back hole as the
singularity. So when something starts to tip inevitably, it's called a
singularity even though that's just the beginning of getting there.

~~~
Udik
I always intended it as "the point beyond which _no description is possible_
", from the mathematical concept of singularity as a point in which a
mathematical object is not defined. Which sort of fits with the idea of a
point in progress beyond which no description of the future is possible.

~~~
dwringer
"Wait. I've seen this. I stand here, right here, and I'm supposed to say
something. I say, 'Everything that has a beginning has an end, Neo.' . . .
What? What did I just say?"

------
vpribish
Skip it, friends. This is a badly-written, and unimportant article. also,
phys.org using clickbait? I thought they were good.

------
zitterbewegung
Algorithms that don't use quantum computation and plain silicon devices are
such a hard hurdle to overcome. I can see a possible future where silicon
reaches its limit and maybe then we will be forced to engineer Quantum
Computation but even so that is still 90 years of research to get them
practical. I found that out when studying Quantum Computation at school.

