News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Quantum Computing's Hard, Cold Reality Check. Parent comment

Re:Quantum Computing's Hard, Cold Reality Check by programjames on Saturday December 23, 2023 @11:17PM (#38751060)
"While initially the work will be converting from classical to optoelectronic hardware for matching current operations, such as MIT's work this year,"

I'm pretty sure you're talking about mean Dirk Englund's photonic matrix multiplication. Also, you should do better at explaining what you mean, because if I wasn't already very familiar with this I would have no clue what you're talking about.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Quantum Computing's Hard, Cold Reality Check by kromem on Sunday December 24, 2023 @12:43AM (#38751432)
No, that was 2022.

I'm talking about this one: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3603269.3604821

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Quantum Computing's Hard, Cold Reality Check by programjames on Monday December 25, 2023 @12:30AM (#38760097)
Look at the author list... Dirk Englund.

What do you mean by "no"? Do you mean, not that paper (that neither of us linked because there are probably several on matrix multiplication) but instead this other one that also has optics and ml and Dirk? I'm seeing a pattern of you understanding what you write, but it being impossible to decipher on my end.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Quantum Computing's Hard, Cold Reality Check by kromem on Thursday December 28, 2023 @04:04PM (#38798591)
You said "I'm pretty sure you mean Dirk Englund's photonic matrix multiplication."

No, I don't mean his photonic matrix multiplication from 2022.

The issue seems more to be with your over specificity leading to ambiguity than anything else here.

[ Parent | on HN ]