I can’t agree these numbers are correct nor can’t I agree they ran an algorithm because I have to trust an article, there is literally no way for ME (or you) to verify the claims of this article without invoking trust. I was not there and there is no evidence of proof beyond a paper.
If you want me to trust they did what they claimed, sure. But Bitcoin has already taught us that trust is not a substitute for proof.
You are still missing my central point: without continuous time, there is no logical qubit in the sense they are asserting. This does not discredit the fact that they are interacting with some physical substrate they choose to label a “logical qubit.” It discredits the ontology they are assuming. If time itself is quantized, then the mathematical object they are “computing” over is not what they think it is.
If the goal is a substrate that genuinely exists in multiple unresolved states across time, why not compute on top of UTXOs? We can suspend UTXOs indefinitely in the mempool, unresolved yet fully defined, across quantized block time. That is a real, observable superposition, one enforced by consensus, not inferred from black box error models.
The crucial difference here is we can prove it on Bitcoin. Bitcoin is open, verifiable, and reproducible by anyone. No press release required. No trust invoked. If you claim computation, show it on a ledger that anyone can audit, you literally have superposed states with unmined transactions in the mempool at your disposal, the won’t decohere until they are measured “mined”
If you want an experiment, go ahead. We’re all waiting….
