sixty three and a half
IBM recently announced their sixty three and a half qubit processor.
Well, not exactly.
They actually announced a 127 qubit processor, but the problem is that hardware is just half the story.
As quantum computers get larger, it becomes increasingly difficult to write software that takes advantage of their new capabilities. Techniques that were good for 10 qubits are inadequate for 100 qubits. With more qubits, the number of possible implementations grows exponentially to the point that a human can't reasonably be expected to find the best way to code a desired algorithm.
Why does it matter? Time savings aside, the ability to capture algorithms in a compact, hardware-aware way could be the difference between using quantum code in production today to waiting another year.
What if your competitors were able to harness the power of quantum computers a year before you?
It's time to explore new ways to design algorithms for these larger quantum computers, so you don't just use "63.5" qubits.
IBM recently announced their sixty three and a half qubit processor.
Well, not exactly.
They actually announced a 127 qubit processor, but the problem is that hardware is just half the story.
As quantum computers get larger, it becomes increasingly difficult to write software that takes advantage of their new capabilities. Techniques that were good for 10 qubits are inadequate for 100 qubits. With more qubits, the number of possible implementations grows exponentially to the point that a human can't reasonably be expected to find the best way to code a desired algorithm.
Why does it matter? Time savings aside, the ability to capture algorithms in a compact, hardware-aware way could be the difference between using quantum code in production today to waiting another year.
What if your competitors were able to harness the power of quantum computers a year before you?
It's time to explore new ways to design algorithms for these larger quantum computers, so you don't just use "63.5" qubits.