[onetimemanytime]

Regardless of what they say, Quantum computer solved it in 200 seconds and IBM states that their super-computer solves it in 2.5 days (Google says 10,000 years.) Even if we take IBM's claim at face value, 200 seconds vs 2.5 DAYS is still a lot of improvement, semantics aside. Not to mention that quantum computers have just started

[sanxiyn]

No, 2.5 days is irrelevant. This is about proving exponential speedup, but IBM is claiming linear scaling, so it is a serious challenge.

[mmusson]

They say linear in time for increasing circuit depth not increasing qubits. They also don’t address the classical algorithm being exponential in memory as well.

[mda]

What if it is linear but angle is so steep that you require all the sands in the world to achieve parity with a classical computer, does it still count?

[sanxiyn]

Of course. Quantum supremacy is a claim about computational complexity. 200 seconds vs 2.5 days is 1000x slowdown. In practical terms, x^10 is even worse than 1000x (linear), but if quantum computer could be simulated in x^10, that would definitely disprove quantum supremacy.

[drcode]

I think in that case you would probably be able to formulate the problem in a different way to show that the angle arises through an exponential process (or more) and that the problem isn't truly linear.

[contravariant]

Maybe but 1) that's hard to prove and 2) it's hard to achieve unless you're looking at some sub-problem where the quantum and classical algorithm actually do scale differently.