Timeline for Can fault tolerant computation be performed in $1$d with strictly local gates?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 27 at 18:45 | comment | added | user196574 | Also, note to myself: I shouldn't have been so quick dismiss distance-2 codes; concatenating them allows for correction, not just detection; see journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.80.022313 for example of concatenating $[[4,1,2]]$ codes in 1d. | |
| Aug 27 at 18:11 | vote | accept | user196574 | ||
| Aug 22 at 17:00 | comment | added | user196574 | You're right. I saw they did a bunch of distance-2 codes, but I jumped to conclusions, my bad! They also have distance-3 codes. | |
| Aug 22 at 16:01 | comment | added | Craig Gidney | @user196574 they say error correction in the abstract | |
| Aug 21 at 2:51 | comment | added | user196574 | +1 Thanks! I think I might have a gap in my knowledge of fault tolerance. It seems they only do error detection. Is that really enough to get a threshold theorem saying that $poly(n)$ gates on $n$ qubits can be simulated with arbitrarily low error up to multiplicative polylog overhead? (Maybe I should make that a separate question!) | |
| Aug 21 at 2:28 | history | answered | Craig Gidney | CC BY-SA 4.0 |