Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Programming Australia

Student's First Academic Paper Solves Decades-Old Quantum Computing Problem (abc.net.au) 96

Posted by EditorDavid from the A+ dept.
"Sydney university student Pablo Bonilla, 21, had his first academic paper published overnight and it might just change the shape of computing forever," writes Australia's national public broadcaster ABC: As a second-year physics student at the University of Sydney, Mr Bonilla was given some coding exercises as extra homework and what he returned with has helped to solve one of the most common problems in quantum computing. His code spiked the interest of researchers at Yale and Duke in the United States and the multi-billion-dollar tech giant Amazon plans to use it in the quantum computer it is trying to build for its cloud platform Amazon Web Services....

Assistant professor Shruti Puri of Yale's quantum research program said the new code solved a problem that had persisted for 20 years. "What amazes me about this new code is its sheer elegance," she said. "Its remarkable error-correcting properties are coming from a simple modification to a code that has been studied extensively for almost two decades...."

Co-author of the paper, the University of Sydney's Ben Brown, said the brilliance of Pablo Bonilla's code was in its simplicity... "We just made the smallest of changes to a chip that everybody is building, and all of a sudden it started doing a lot better. It's quite amazing to me that nobody spotted it in the 20-or-so years that people have been working on that model."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Student's First Academic Paper Solves Decades-Old Quantum Computing Problem More

Student's First Academic Paper Solves Decades-Old Quantum Computing Problem

Comments Filter:

  • Irrelevant (Score:1, Interesting)

    by gweihir ( 88907 )

    Quantum Computing is, at this time, still complete bullshit. There is no conclusive evidence it will ever scale to any useful size. There is a ton of indication it will not, and that is a "not ever in this universe", not a "may require 100, 1000 or 10'000 years to get there". The whole idea is theoreticians with no practical insights into computing running amok and others funding "magic" that they do not understand.

    Yes, I get that this will be down-modded because too many people are incapable of facing real

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by SirSlud ( 67381 )

      It'll probably get downmodded because the chances that you know better is a benchmark for "not ever in this universe".

    • Re:Irrelevant (Score:5, Funny)

      by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Saturday April 17, 2021 @02:30PM (#61284502)

      Thank you random slashdot shitposter. I’ll let all the scientists studying quantum theory know they’re wasting their time.

      • Nice argument from authority.

        You're not as intellectually evolved as the pre-Socratics.

    • Have you seen the first... (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      ...transistor? It's pretty big. Imagine if you told the inventor that one day we would put millions of them in a small silicon chip and use it to do many tasks beyond on and off. He'd scoff like you did and try to have you committed.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by shanen ( 462549 )

      Quantum Computing is, at this time, still complete bullshit. There is no conclusive evidence it will ever scale to any useful size. There is a ton of indication it will not, and that is a "not ever in this universe", not a "may require 100, 1000 or 10'000 years to get there". The whole idea is theoreticians with no practical insights into computing running amok and others funding "magic" that they do not understand.

      Yes, I get that this will be down-modded because too many people are incapable of facing reality.

      Quoted against the censor troll mods, but I'd like to see you cite some of the "ton of indication" you mention.

      Better the censors should provide some of the evidence. If you say the evidence does not exist and they want to refute you, then that's the obvious solution. (And just to be sure, I checked the discussion for citations. Only found one (repeated) and it did not refute you.)

      • Re: Irrelevant (Score:5, Informative)

        by niftydude ( 1745144 ) on Saturday April 17, 2021 @05:34PM (#61284936)
        If you're genuinely interested, the following is a good introduction to some of the big problems with quantum computing. Long, but written in a way that non-specialists can follow. (Though a certain level of technical engineering understanding will help):

        https://spectrum.ieee.org/comp... [ieee.org]

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by shanen ( 462549 )

          I'm naturally skeptical, so I don't need too much support to remain skeptical. Then again, sometimes I'm trying to be optimistic, but I do want to see evidence, so I strongly felt the onus was on the critics, at least as regards the censorious critics of the FP.

          For many years I was at the bleeding edge of various kinds of research. Well, not really the bleeding edge for me, but sort of behind the blade trying to clean up some of the blood as they published their bleeding-edge research papers. As those exper

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ed1park ( 100777 )

      It won't get anywhere with that attitude. Nor does any progress in any new field. The world has advanced because someone, somewhere is working on something no one else believes in. And out of billions of people, that one person will help change the world. Musk, Einstein, Satoshi, etc

      The rest of the people sit on the sidelines talking shit doing nothing. That's what slashdot has become.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gweihir ( 88907 )

        You are wrong. This is not the situation at hand. Quantum Computing has gotten nowhere for about 40 years now. The only thing keeping it going is fantasies and hot air.

        • Quantum Computing has gotten nowhere for about 40 years now.

          Prior to the 1970's, personal computing had gotten nowhere for at least 4 thousand years. So what?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by gweihir ( 88907 )

            Quantum Computing has gotten nowhere for about 40 years now.

            Prior to the 1970's, personal computing had gotten nowhere for at least 4 thousand years.
            So what?

            And how much research had been invested into personal computing at that time? Right.
            Because Quantum Computing has _had_ 40 years of intense research and gotten nowhere despite that.

            Your statement is just completely stupid, nothing else.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by q_e_t ( 5104099 )
              I'm moderately sceptical about quantum computing, but you need to learn the difference between 'nowhere' and 'not yet in my phone'. I saw people make similar arguments about machine learning or PV power. Of course, fusion will be perpetually 30 years away.
    • Yeah, they said rockets wouldnâ(TM)t work in space because thereâ(TM)s nothing to push against!

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gweihir ( 88907 )

        Yeah, they said rockets wouldnâ(TM)t work in space because thereâ(TM)s nothing to push against!

        And than you look at how much known Physics had to change to get from there to here. Do you think they will have to throw out basically almost _everything_ again? Sounds very far-fetched.

    • D-wave quantum annealing optimizer is already here.

  • Fresh Eyes (Score:2, Interesting)

    by I75BJC ( 4590021 )
    At times, the first "swipe" at a problem is the best.
    At times, a personal unskilled/untrained in the "official dogma" of the parent group can see the problem.
    At times, Professors will read and credit under-grad students with person hood, intelligence, and respect.
    All times, all of us are needed -- maybe not for the same thing.

    "Kudos!", kid.
    • Here's to all the outliers?

  • Useless Article (Score:5, Informative)

    by fennec ( 936844 ) on Saturday April 17, 2021 @01:56PM (#61284412)
    Does not show the code obviously, does not explain what it's supposed to do, nor the fix or how it improves what... Just comments about how wonderful this guy is.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by SirSlud ( 67381 )

      "I am too lazy to find the paper, and too stupid to not understand why it's not provided in a general news article."

      • Re:Useless Article (Score:4, Informative)

        by quall ( 1441799 ) on Saturday April 17, 2021 @02:36PM (#61284516)

        It doesn't even say what was solved or any details about anything. Basically just click-bait. Nobody is going to care to read a paper on it unless they're interested in quantum computing.

        Apparently it sped up a chip, or something. If the author of the article didn't even care to look, then it's probably not worth anyone else's time either.

      • I'll admit that I'm too stupid to understand why at least a link to the paper wasn't provided in the general news article. Perhaps you can explain it to me? Use small words please, me being stupid and all.

        Hopefully it isn't "pay for it".

        • It's written by a journalist. Journalists annoyingly bring in human interest and take out factual details because 95% of the audience can relate to the former but only 10% to the latter.

          disclaimer: percentages made up by a boy who once found a coin with the image of his grandfather in the yard and proceeded to dig a morsel at a time to find more, using a spoon that he... but I digress.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by q_e_t ( 5104099 )
            This is why scientists get training in communication so they can basically write articles for journalists. Even the best science journalists, often ex-scientists, aren't experts in quantum computing, astrophysics and molecular biology, and may be the only science journalist on the Nether Wallop Daily Blah.

      • Re: (Score:2, Redundant)

        by couchslug ( 175151 )

        A TECH SITE with non-retarded editors would link it in the first place.

        https://www.nature.com/article... [nature.com]

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Rei ( 128717 )

          Thank you. Sad I had to scroll halfway down through the comments before someone posted it :P

      • WHY IS IT AN ARTICLE IS IF LACKS EXACTLY WHAT IT SUPPOSEDLY IS ABOUT??

        WHY MUST I LOOK UP SOMETHING IF *YOU* ARE CURRENTLY SUPPOSEDLY TELLING ME ABOUT IT?

        You want to tell me, then tell me! Or just don't write an empty article and shut the fuck up.

        ---
        filter error: don't use so many caps. it's like yelling. ... yeah, no shit? ... filter error: don't use so many caps. it's like yelling. ... yeah, no shit? ...

    • Many eyes make code changes shallow.
    • Well yeah... but look at the paper, how the hell do you summarize any of that into a newspaper article? Personally I didn't understand fuck all what it's supposed to be about. Better error correction something... nope, I'm clearly missing tons of relevant background to understand this.

      • Maybe the author of the article, when they were interviewing the authors of the paper, should have asked for a 3 sentence summary of what the change is.

        • Try explaining in three sentences why Jar-Jar is the most hated Star Wars character - to a caveman that has never seen Star Wars and doesn't understand the concepts of science fiction or movies. That's the kind of problem faced here. The paper like any has an abstract and I'm sure it perfectly summarizes what the paper is about, it's just that I'm missing all the context required to understand it. Read it for yourself, maybe you know more about quantum information theory than I do. https://www.nature.com/ar [nature.com]

          • Try explaining in three sentences why Jar-Jar is the most hated Star Wars character - to a caveman that has never seen Star Wars and doesn't understand the concepts of science fiction or movies.

            I'll try in one sentence: Jar-Jar is an annoying buffoon.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by q_e_t ( 5104099 )
            As I noted before, scientists are now generally trained to be communicators and should be able to provide short (even three sentence) summaries. However, some things still defy being summarised so succinctly and bring out the differences between old and new methods and still be understandable. It would be nice if the article had tried, though, and part of the science communication training is boiling things down to the shortest summary (which might be five sentences) and intermediate lengths so a journalist

      • Here, let me help you:
         
        .relevant
        {
            background: #FFF;
        }

  • Which decades-old problem? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Alexey Nogin ( 10307 ) on Saturday April 17, 2021 @01:56PM (#61284418) Homepage
    It's amazing how both the Slashdot summary and the news article are pure fluff - no explanation of /which/ problem was solved! Could somebody please explain what the actual innovation is?

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I haven't posted here in forever, but this is just lazy on your part. https://www.nature.com/article... [nature.com] which links to https://bitbucket.org/qecsim/q... [bitbucket.org]

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by NFN_NLN ( 633283 )

        > I haven't posted here in forever, but this is just lazy on your part.

        Is EditorDavid's real name Alexey Nogin? If so... F that guy with a rust bat for posting such a lazy summary. I don't pay a slashdot monthly subscription to have to do side research.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by goten ( 36521 )
          AC was me. You pay for this shit? It was all in the summary to begin with, but apparently you can't read.
          • Look, I found and skimmed the Nature article before writing my original post. But I am not a QC expert, and so have no clue what a surface code is, why they are important, and what exactly was unsolved about them for 20 years. I can have a guess based on skimming the article, but it is completely lazy that the ABC West Sydney did not bother to include any explanation in their article, not even mentioning "surface code", and instead just filling the whole article with fluff. And given that the original artic

            • Re: (Score:1)

              by goten ( 36521 )
              So clearly this isn't news for nerds. It's "news dumbed the fuck down so everybody could read it" How about... maybe... you find your technical answers on a site that doesn't have such a specific motto?
            • Thank you for bringing this to our attention. It looks to hold more promise than the EM Drive.

        • I don't pay a slashdot monthly subscription

          WTF is a "slashdot monthly subscription"?

      • Lazy on my part??

        Do tell us: WHERE in TFS is that link to the nature article and bitbucket? ... Hm?

        Do you even know the damn point of a news aggregator site?
        Hint: It's *precisely* so we don't have to hunt for the nugget of information in the pile of fluff and shit.

    • Relax and wait for the dupe to be posted soon, probably with even greater detail by then.

    • The decades old problem is the Dicedot editors who know what they're doing and do it anyway. They are accountable to no one for the crapflooding but it makes their task extremely easy.

    • I didn't understand most of it (alright, 99.95% of it) but I think they simply removed the infamous evil bit?

    • It's amazing how both the Slashdot summary and the news article are pure fluff

      It's amazing that this /. post is pure fluff, like virtually all /. posts?

  • TFS and TFA don't describe the code in any way.

    It turns out to be called the XZZX code, which is variant of a surface code, which is a kind of lattice code.

  • "the multi-billion-dollar tech giant Amazon plans to use it in the quantum computer it is trying to build for its cloud platform Amazon Web Services...."

    Since this is the kind of thing that Amazon or any other mega-corp would patent the shit out of to sell, let's hope the kid at least gets a job offer out of this.

    • To borrow your phrase - in today's academia, I wouldn't be surprised if that university hasn't already "patented the shit" out of this code in order to monetize it.

      • The linked code says it's released under the BSD 3-clause license.

        Does that preclude patenting the concept and locking it up? (I really don't know.)

        • That's actually pretty good. BSD licenses basically boil down to "you can do whatever you want with it, but you also can't stop anyone else from doing what they want with it" - so it would seemingly preclude any sort of onerous patent on the code itself (although I am most certainly neither a lawyer nor a licensing / patent expert).

          https://opensource.org/license... [opensource.org]

          • "you can do whatever you want with it, but you also can't stop anyone else from doing what they want with it"

            Completely false, it doesn't say anything about the latter part.

            Once again, you linked shit without reading it, or understanding it.

        • No. That's the copyright.

          It's just a formula, the copyright doesn't cover the concept, only the write-up, so there is no utility in the copyright; quantum computers don't even have an OS yet, or a programming language; each run of the computer is "wired" to do a single calculation. So there isn't "code" in the computer sense, only code in the math sense, which isn't protected.

          Patent is 100% of the stuff that protects this, and the University most likely has the right to patent it. They're different things,

    • I hope he both gets one and doesn't get one at the same time.

      • I hope he both gets one and doesn't get one at the same time.

        Fair point.

      • I hope he both gets one and doesn't get one at the same time.

        If so, I hope that, when the superposition collapses on observation, it collapses to the state with more money in his accounts.

  • Problem? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by enriquevagu ( 1026480 ) on Saturday April 17, 2021 @02:26PM (#61284496)

    If a new, better solution is found for a given problem, I believe that the summary should at least explain what is the problem. And the improvement in the solution, by the way.

    What is more relevant, the advance obtained with the new solution, or the fact that it was obtained by a second-year undergraduate student?

  • link to the actual paper (Score:5, Informative)

    by sxpert ( 139117 ) on Saturday April 17, 2021 @02:29PM (#61284500)

    the paper appears to be open access and is available here
    https://www.nature.com/article... [nature.com]

  • Maybe my brain needs an error correction algorithm, I can't help but read XYZZY when I read the title 'The XZZX surface code'.

    And if you have never had the pleasure of playing an Infocom games like Zork.
    http://textadventures.co.uk/ga... [textadventures.co.uk]

    Type XYZZY at the prompt.

  • Here's the parent OP refused to link: (Score:5, Interesting)

    by couchslug ( 175151 ) on Saturday April 17, 2021 @03:45PM (#61284698)

    https://www.nature.com/article... [nature.com]

    "The research paper was published in the journal Nature Communications." is not a fucking link.

    Either link to the precise parent with the meaningful content or don't fucking post you idiot. This is not cool, just more of your passive-aggressive nonsense working hard to make Dicedot suck.

    WHY DO YOU DO THIS? Neither editor has ever answered why they default to lazily posting trash.

  • Ataides is the man's last name, but this post refers to him as 'Mr. Bonilla' .... are you a bot, poster? Or maybe it was auto-translated.

    Things are so randomly bad, inaccurate or poorly conceived online these days, we always have to wonder if it was produced by:

    - a fraud
    - a bot (only suited to transmit pure data, possibly in shortened form)
    - a troll
    - a moron

    Also, summary offers zero hints about what was solved, how, and why it matters. Please try again. You're so close.

Slashdot Top Deals

There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about. -- John von Neumann

Close