Quantum computer storage capacity

[Deleted member 690984]

I have a question regarding the storage capacity of quantum computers. I read that 32 qubits (4 "quantum bytes" if you will - not sure if that's an actual term or not yet) can store the equivalent of 500mb of data.

Is this directly proportional? I.e., would 8 qubits store the equivalent of 125mb of data? 64 qubits would be the equivalent of a gigabyte?

 

[Baluncore]

I read that 32 qubits (4 "quantum bytes" if you will - not sure if that's an actual term or not yet) can store the equivalent of 500mb of data.

Where did you read that?
A qubit can only store one binary bit, or on the odd occasion, two entangled bits.
32 qubits can store 2^32 different possible patterns, but only 32 bits can be read at one time.

 

[Vanadium 50]

M = mega, m = milli. 500 mb is half a bit.

 

[DaveE]

M = mega, m = milli. 500 mb is half a bit.

OK, it's wrong. However, everyone knows what was meant. Context matters. Good engineers and scientists can correct for obvious typos that represent 9 orders of magnitude difference. Cosmologists and Mathematicians? I'm not sure they care.

 

[Vanadium 50]

You could say the same about Imperial and Metric, and before you know it, your probe crashes into mars.

 

[DaveE]

You could say the same about Imperial and Metric, and before you know it, your probe crashes into mars.

I was referring to ridiculously large errors and common typos. Of course you were correct, just like the grammaticians that insist people use who and whom correctly.

Imperial vs. metric and Mega vs. milli are not comparable. However, I agree that small errors are scary and require great care. Inch vs. cm isn't even 1/2 of a decade.

 

[Deleted member 690984]

Where did you read that?
A qubit can only store one binary bit, or on the odd occasion, two entangled bits.
32 qubits can store 2^32 different possible patterns, but only 32 bits can be read at one time.

I've seen this figure quoted in multiple places:

"a quantum computer with just 32 qubits, you could be in 2³² = 4,294,967,296 states simultaneously which could translate to approximately 500 MB of data."

 

[Deleted member 690984]

I was referring to ridiculously large errors and common typos. Of course you were correct, just like the grammaticians that insist people use who and whom correctly.

Imperial vs. metric and Mega vs. milli are not comparable. However, I agree that small errors are scary and require great care. Inch vs. cm isn't even 1/2 of a decade.

It's fine. Some people are just compulsive pedants.

 

[Baluncore]

OK, it's wrong. However, everyone knows what was meant. Context matters.

Context may flag an error, but it does not fix the fundamental fault. Get it right.
If you get sloppy and rely on context, you should expect to lose marks and credibility now, then encounter more expensive problems later.
Do not be afraid to question and correct the error when you see it.

I remember an Environmental Science exam question along the lines of "why is the hydrosere important". No one questioned the spelling. 47 students recognised a spelling error when they saw it, so wrote about the hydrosphere. The three of us who had braved the ice and cold wind to attend the 8AM mid-winter lecture did very well in the exam.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrosere

 

[Baluncore]

"a quantum computer with just 32 qubits, you could be in 2³² = 4,294,967,296 states simultaneously which could translate to approximately 500 MB of data."

A qubit is not a storage element, it is a noisy processor element that has a probability; 0 ≤ p ≤ 1. Each time you read a single qubit you will get only 0 or 1. Coupling between the qubits in a QC distorts the probabilities and may statistically lead to a valid result.

 

[Deleted member 690984]

Context may flag an error, but it does not fix the fundamental fault. Get it right.
If you get sloppy and rely on context, you should expect to lose marks and credibility now, then encounter more expensive problems later.
Do not be afraid to question and correct the error when you see it.

I'm not a scientist, nor do I work in the sciences, so I really don't care. Everyone knows what I meant. Only people who are compulsive pedants seem to be having an issue here.

"You should expect to lose marks" - from whom? Nobody is grading anything here.

 

[Baluncore]

"You should expect to lose marks" - from whom? Nobody is grading anything here.

Students who read this in the future need the correction, or they will lose marks. They need to get it right.

I'm not a scientist, nor do I work in the sciences, so I really don't care. Everyone knows what I meant.

The fact that you don't care about breaking the SI suffix protocol is relevant to your credibility.

I've seen this figure quoted in multiple places:

I asked where it is once quoted, not how many times you think you have seen it. Maybe you imagined it.

Only people who are compulsive pedants seem to be having an issue here.

It is not a problem. It should only need to be corrected once, beyond that it makes you a mumpsimus.

 

[phinds]

I've seen this figure quoted in multiple places:

Here on PF that "citation" has exactly as much credibility as saying "Some guy on a bus told me that ..."

If you've seen it in multiple places you should not have any problem listing one. Instead you have evaded the question.