Korotkov, Fedor Kostritsa, David Landhuis, Mike Lindmark, Erik Lucero, Dmitry I. Isakov, Evan Jeffrey, Zhang Jiang, Dvir Kafri, Kostyantyn Kechedzhi, Julian Kelly, Paul V. Graff, Keith Guerin, Steve Habegger, Matthew P. Fowler, Craig Gidney, Marissa Giustina, R. Burkett, Yu Chen, Zijun Chen, Ben Chiaro, Roberto Collins, William Courtney, Andrew Dunsworth, Edward Farhi, Brooks Foxen, Austin G. Bardin, Rami Barends, Rupak Biswas, Sergio Boixo, Fernando G. This dramatic increase in speed compared to all known classical algorithms is an experimental realization of quantum supremacy8-14 for this specific computational task, heralding a much-anticipated computing paradigm.read more read lessįrank Arute, Kunal Arya, Ryan Babbush, Dave Bacon, Joseph C. Our Sycamore processor takes about 200 seconds to sample one instance of a quantum circuit a million times-our benchmarks currently indicate that the equivalent task for a state-of-the-art classical supercomputer would take approximately 10,000 years. Measurements from repeated experiments sample the resulting probability distribution, which we verify using classical simulations. Here we report the use of a processor with programmable superconducting qubits2-7 to create quantum states on 53 qubits, corresponding to a computational state-space of dimension 253 (about 1016). A fundamental challenge is to build a high-fidelity processor capable of running quantum algorithms in an exponentially large computational space. Martinis 5 - Show less +82 more Ībstract: The promise of quantum computers is that certain computational tasks might be executed exponentially faster on a quantum processor than on a classical processor1. Jamie Yao 1, Ping Yeh 1, Adam Zalcman 1, Hartmut Neven 1, John M. Trevithick 1, Amit Vainsencher 1, Benjamin Villalonga 12, Benjamin Villalonga 1, Theodore White 1, Z. Satzinger 1, Vadim Smelyanskiy 1, Kevin J. McClean 1, Matt McEwen 5, Anthony Megrant 1, Xiao Mi 1, Kristel Michielsen 9, Kristel Michielsen 10, Masoud Mohseni 1, Josh Mutus 1, Ofer Naaman 1, Matthew Neeley 1, Charles Neill 1, Murphy Yuezhen Niu 1, Eric Ostby 1, Andre Petukhov 1, John Platt 1, Chris Quintana 1, Eleanor Rieffel 3, Pedram Roushan 1, Nicholas C. Korotkov 1, Fedor Kostritsa 1, David Landhuis 1, Mike Lindmark 1, E. Isakov 1, Evan Jeffrey 1, Zhang Jiang 1, Dvir Kafri 1, Kostyantyn Kechedzhi 1, Julian Kelly 1, Paul V. Graff 1, Keith Guerin 1, Steve Habegger 1, Matthew P. Fowler 1, Craig Gidney 1, Marissa Giustina 1, R. Burkett 1, Yu Chen 1, Zijun Chen 1, Ben Chiaro 5, Roberto Collins 1, William Courtney 1, Andrew Dunsworth 1, Edward Farhi 1, Brooks Foxen 5, Brooks Foxen 1, Austin G. Bardin 1, Rami Barends 1, Rupak Biswas 3, Sergio Boixo 1, Fernando G. But I agree with Cindy that thick slices are often better when served on a plate.Frank Arute 1, Kunal Arya 1, Ryan Babbush 1, Dave Bacon 1, Joseph C. although salami, bologna, formed ham and many others are still better shaved). When it comes to sandwiches, I'm of the opinion that shaved meat is always superior to sliced (except possibly when we're dealing with some that weren't a whole muscle to start. Not only in how it's cut, but how it's prepared and possibly how it's presented and accompanying dishes. There may be national or regional dishes that prepare a specific cut of meat in a specific way. Most cuts of meat from larger mammals may be sliced thickly or thinly, but the decisions soon often comes down to tradition more than anything else. E slow cooked until it falls apart on its own, such as for pulled pork. If it doesn't have long, strong muscles, it may be fine without. ![]() Not all cuts of meat require the slicing, however. ![]() A properly sliced flank steak is tender, while unsliced or improperly sliced it's tough and chewy. ![]() Some meats are sliced thinly to break up the muscle fibers that run through it.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |