_______ __ _______
| | |.---.-..----.| |--..-----..----. | | |.-----..--.--.--..-----.
| || _ || __|| < | -__|| _| | || -__|| | | ||__ --|
|___|___||___._||____||__|__||_____||__| |__|____||_____||________||_____|
on Gopher (inofficial)
HTML Visit Hacker News on the Web
COMMENT PAGE FOR:
HTML P-computers can solve spin-glass problems faster than quantum systems
wasabi991011 wrote 27 min ago:
I'm having a hard time understanding this article.
First of all, a quantum annealer is not a universal quantum computer,
just to elucidate the title.
Then, it seems like they are comparing a simulation of p-computers to a
physical realization of a quantum annealer (likely D-wave, but not
named outright for some reason).
If this is true, it doesn't seem like a very relevant comparison,
because D-wave systems actually exist, while their p-computer sounds
like it is just a design.
But I may have misunderstood, because at times they make it sound like
the p-computer actually exists.
Also, they talk about how p-computers can be scaled up with TSMC
semiconductor technology. From what I know, this is also true for
semiconductor-based (universal) quantum computers.
ThouYS wrote 54 min ago:
P is stored in the computer
oersted wrote 3 min ago:
Probably against guidelines, but made me smile, so there's your
upvote sir :)
cubefox wrote 1 hour 9 min ago:
I'm confused. Do p-computers have any complexity theoretic advantage
over classical computers, similar to how quantum computers have such an
advantage in some areas? Or are they just normal computers in the end?
inkysigma wrote 37 min ago:
The answer should be no right? I think BPP is expected to be equal to
P and BQP to be not equal to P.
supernetworks wrote 7 min ago:
by complexity class that would be consensus, although the argument
for building BPP systems is about the energy cost being orders of
magnitude less and perhaps also some polynomial speedup
DonHopkins wrote 53 min ago:
P-computers is just another name for legume-computers, which are
great for bean-counting, and are deployed in pods.
gaze wrote 1 hour 14 min ago:
The communication here is clear as mud. WHICH quantum systems? D-Wave?
We know D-Wave is a joke!
simonerlic wrote 1 hour 22 min ago:
Good sign that Extropic may be on the right path here
v8xi wrote 56 min ago:
Just remains to be seen whether they can maintain capitalization long
enough to find PMF
mrbluecoat wrote 1 hour 49 min ago:
> We used millions of p-bits
I'm not sure how this compares to quantum with its dozens to hundreds
of qubits
m_dupont wrote 2 hours 5 min ago:
Very interesting article.
This makes me wonder: Would it be possible to implement an equivalent
to Shor's algorithm on a p-computer. Maybe the quantumness isn't
necessary at all
gaze wrote 31 min ago:
The power of quantum computing is constructing the solution to a
problem out of an interference pattern. Classical probabilities
donât interfere, but quantum probabilities do. Loosely, quantum
probabilities can be constructed to cancel, since their amplitudes
can be negative.
Shorâs algorithm works on the quantum Fourier transform. The
quantum Fourier transform works because you can pick a frequency out
of a signal using a âtest wave.â The test wave can select out the
amplitude of interest because the information of the test wave
constructively interferes, whereas every other frequency cancels.
This is the interference effect that can only happen with
complex/negative probability amplitudes.
supernetworks wrote 1 hour 40 min ago:
A direct equivalent, no, as stated in the introduction.
"Notably, while probabilistic computers can emulate quantum
interference with polynomial resources, their convergence is in
general believed to require
exponential time [10]. This challenge is known as the signproblem in
Monte Carlo algorithms [11]."
aleph_minus_one wrote 1 hour 34 min ago:
> A direct equivalent, no, as stated in the introduction
... of
HTML [1]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-64235-y
supernetworks wrote 24 min ago:
yes, this paper is the main subject of the article
aleph_minus_one wrote 14 min ago:
The article links two papers (text: "Two recent papers
underscore that potential."):
- [1] (link text: "In one study")
- [2] (link text: "In the most recent paper")
HTML [1]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41928-025-01439-6
HTML [2]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-64235-y
supernetworks wrote 4 min ago:
yes understood, the first article isn't the main subject of
the article.
inasio wrote 1 hour 44 min ago:
The paper compares p-computers with D-Wave's quantum annealing
machine, which is limited to only solving certain problems (as
opposed to universal QC such as Google or IonQ's, that could in
theory implement Shor's)
marzchipane wrote 1 hour 47 min ago:
That's a cool thought! For those who may not know, Shor's algorithm
is fundamentally quantum because it relies on the interference of
probability amplitudes, which can be both positive and negative. It
could not be directly implemented on a p-computer because you could
only simulate this interference, which removes the exponential
advantage.
It's possible that an entirely different approach is made possible by
p-computers, but this would be tricky to find. Furthermore, it seems
that the main advantage of p-computers is sampling from a
Boltzmann-like distribution, and I'm not aware that this is the
bottleneck in any known factorisation algorithm.
MontyCarloHall wrote 1 hour 50 min ago:
I doubt it. Shor's algorithm relies on the quantum Fourier transform,
which requires the complex phase information encoded in the quantum
wavefunctions. The quantum probability norm (L2) accounts for
interference between the complex amplitudes of these wavefunctions;
the classical L1 probability norm does not.
DIR <- back to front page