quilc

hours on the weekend. [1] https://github.com/quil-lang/quilc [2] https://github.com/quil-lang/qvm [3] https://github.com/coalton-lang/coalton

in any useful manner. Toffoli is like a quantum computing "NAND"-gate of sorts, it's useful in building up larger computations (like adders and multipliers). The problem is, it's not error corrected. So imagine building a full-adder, but every logic gate is inaccurate by about 1%. In series, those 1%'s rack up quickly. > New family of N-qubit gates can only be run on IonQ quantum computer architecture. This is hugely misleading. You can do an N-qubit Toffoli on any computer. That's what a compiler is for. That's like saying "You can only do AES encryption on Intel processors because they have the instruction for it." It's not true. You can do AES on any computing architecture, especially if you have an implementation in a portable programming language. > Once implemented, gate is expected to speed up several fundamental algorithms for quantum computing. Like what? Again, it's unlikely. A non-error-corrected Toffoli has limited utility, unless there's deep research in NISQ algorithms using slightly unfaithful Toffoli operations profitably that I'm unaware of. Later in the article they mention: > IonQ and Duke’s discovery may lead to significant efficiency gains in solving fundamental quantum algorithms, such as Grover’s search algorithm, variational quantum eigensolvers (VQEs), and arithmetic operations like addition and multiplication. Grover requires a fault-tolerant oracle for non-trivial problems, so that's out. Arithmetic the same (see above). Nobody to my knowledge has developed any reasonable Ansätze for VQE that use Toffoli gates that outperform existing ones—and VQE doesn't exactly have a lustrous record anyway for doing anything useful at scale. I think IonQ has made an interesting scientific achievement, and might even make for a few cool proof-of-concept demos, but it's hard to believe it'll lead to much of anything useful. Their speculation in the article, in my opinion, is squarely out-of-bounds. [0] https://github.com/quil-lang/quilc

for university professors that have repeating long-running courses) i am not sure what type of references you are asking for but i will list few open source projects that might be interesting to you: * CLASP - common lisp implementation build on top of LLVM. this project is headed by a computational chemist (prof. schafmeister) [0] * PetaLisp - for HPC [1] * MAGICL - Matrix Algebra proGrams In Common Lisp by Rigetti Computing [2] * Quil - quantum instruction language developed on top of common lisp [3] * CL-CUDA - use NVIDIA CUDA in Common Lisp programs [4] * MGL - Common Lisp machine learning library [5] * Maxima - a computer algebra system developed in common lisp [6] i think these are plenty to show that there exists serious interest in using common lisp for scientific computing. it is possible that some of the people behind these projects are on HN and maybe they can further expand on this [0] https://github.com/clasp-developers/clasp [1] https://github.com/marcoheisig/Petalisp [2] https://github.com/quil-lang/magicl [3] https://github.com/quil-lang/quilc [4] https://github.com/takagi/cl-cuda [5] https://github.com/melisgl/mgl also https://github.com/melisgl/higgsml [6] https://maxima.sourceforge.io/