Talk:Quantum supremacy

WikiProject Computing / Software / Hardware

(Rated C-class, High-importance)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles C This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.  High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Software (marked as High-importance). This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (marked as High-importance).

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jamesonoreilly. Peer reviewers: Rothschild.e.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 August 2020 and 23 November 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mcatalano26, Ctaitz. Peer reviewers: ColeDU, Jgus716.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talk[edit]

A good start on your Quantum Supremacy summary, @Jamesonoreilly--this article will complement other related entries on Wikipedia (e.g. quantum computing, quantum mechanical phenomena, etc). --Amyc29 (talk) 01:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought this article did a really good job of organizing the relevant information into sections where each section had a decent amount of information and representation. I'm not familiar with this topic at all so there was definitely some information that went over my head, but I think you explained it in a coherent enough way that if I knew a little more about algorithms and circuits it would make perfect sense. I would work on some wording just to make the point of some sentences clear, for example I had to reread the part of your introduction that talked about polynomial speedups just because the phrasing was a bit confusing. I would also add a "Notes" title above all of your references (so many!) and add links within your article to other wikipedia pages. Overall, really well organized, great information, very thorough - I'll definitely be looking into reorganizing my article because I like the way you did yours. Read like an encyclopedia with acknowledgment of the skepticism without seeming like you were persuading the reader either way. Good work! Greenough.h (talk) 19:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article Evaluation:

This page demonstrates a strong knowledge of quantum computing and both the results needed for, and the arguments for and against the supremacy of quantum computing to traditional computing methods.  Factual, to the point, well organized.  Tone is neutral, page does a good job discussing skepticism of quantum supremacy.

This article could use more explanation of the litany of technical terminology needed to understand the article.  Sentences are dense, and at times tough to read.  A simple alternative could be hyperlinking wikipedia pages that explain technical terminology, such as the wikipedia page for qubits.  The intention of google to prove quantum supremacy in 2017 is mentioned twice in the article, both times the sentence structure is virtually the same.  The second mention of google's plans to build a 49 qubit quantum computer does not say anything new.  Even though these sentences are in different sections, consider removing the second mention, or altering the sentence to mention the potential development in a new and interesting way.

This page presents information on the proposed supremacy of quantum computing in an unbiased manner.  The page has all the information needed to be a good first source for researching quantum supremacy, but the language used in the page is a bit to dense to be the best first source that it could be.  The concepts discussed could potentially be introduced in more accessible language. Overall, a really good wiki submission.Rothschild.e (talk) 03:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the feedback! I shortened the last paragraph of the lead to make it more of a summary and to avoid being repetitive when I mention Google's plans later on. As for density, I think that the level of knowledge required to read the article is similar to that needed for related articles like quantum computing. I added a lot of links to other Wikipedia articles to keep mine connected to other related content and to make it easier to fill in the gaps not covered in this article. Jamesonoreilly (talk) 03:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quantum advantage with shallow circuits[edit]

Can anyone with more knowledge in the subject check if this news is in the scope of the article? If so, could you update the article with information about this new theorem? Saung Tadashi (talk) 04:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Criticism of the name section[edit]

I mistakenly re-added this section without a corresponding message, but to explain my reasoning: I'm not particularly attached to the section, but I think it's a reasonably common criticism in the quantum computing community; looking at the extended list of signatories, Debbie Leung, Anne Broadbent, Andrew G. White have all signed the petition, along with a good number of people at Microsoft Quantum. I think it also has enough press coverage to justify inclusion. Fawly (talk) 08:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I concur. I think the whole drama is rather silly, but it did get some coverage, and plenty of serious researchers were involved. Tercer (talk) 09:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hans Wurst's suggestion of "quantum ascendancy" is thought to be unacceptably offensive.96.235.138.158 (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)Dieter FuniculaReply[reply]

Requested move 3 January 2023[edit]

It has been proposed in this section that Quantum supremacy be renamed and moved to Quantum advantage. A bot will list this discussion on requested moves' current discussions subpage within half an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Quantum supremacy → Quantum advantage – As noted in the Criticism section, "Quantum Supremacy" evokes the racist "white supremacy". Over the past 12 months, "Quantum Advantage" has pulled ahead of "Quantum Supremacy" in Google Trends for search frequency, thus making it the new WP:COMMONNAME Michaelmalak (talk) 14:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose. The Google Trends data is way too noisy to show anything beyond the fact that there's very few people searching for either term. The problem with "quantum advantage" is that it is a generic term, used for plenty of phenomena beyond the strict sense of a computational problem that can be solved by a quantum computer but not a classical one. I don't think it is a good choice for title when a more narrow term exists. As for WP:COMMONNAME, there are tons of papers from 2022 using the name "quantum supremacy", so it's not as if the scientific community has adopted "quantum advantage" instead. Tercer (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On Google Scholar, Quantum Advantage has also pulled ahead of Quantum Supremacy, in the field of computing. Michaelmalak (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It has 2330 hits for "quantum advantage" versus 2280 hits for "quantum supremacy". It's an insignificant difference. Moreover, just looking at the first page of results I found a paper [1] that is about generic quantum advantage, not quantum supremacy. Tercer (talk) 15:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Question: If we did this, would it expand the scope of the article? I get the impression that "quantum supremacy" is a little bit more specific, and refers to the space-race-like competition to demonstrate achievement, while "quantum advantage" can refer more broadly to the potential advantages that quantum computers offer over classical machines. For example, "Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor" seems in line with the current text about the goal of demonstrating a measurable advantage (for an impractical problem), but "Information-Theoretic Bounds on Quantum Advantage in Machine Learning" is about theoretical advantage (potentially for practical problems). Freoh (talk) 03:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]