citesteThe post Google \u00ee\u0219i proclam\u0103 suprema\u021bia cuantic\u0103 ["Q-01 Who appeared first on Revista connect Romania ?"] "
Google \u00ee\u0219i proclam\u0103 suprema\u021bia cuantic\u0103 Google a anun\u021bat ieri c\u0103 a f\u0103cut un pas ["Q-01 ]
Google \u00ee\u0219i proclam\u0103 suprema\u021bia cuantic\u0103 Google a anun\u021bat ieri c\u0103 a f\u0103cut un pas tehnologic important \u00een dezvoltarea computerelor cuantice. Astfel potrivit unui studiu publicat pe nature.com cercet\u0103torilor din Santa Barbara (California) arat\u0103 faptul c\u0103 au atins un deziderat existent \u00eenc\u0103 din 1980 super computerul cuantic aflat \u00een lucru a executat cu ajutorul unui procesor superconductor programabil o sarcin\u0103 ce... citesteThe post Google \u00ee\u0219i proclam\u0103 suprema\u021bia cuantic\u0103 appeared first on Revista connect Romania. ["Q-02 ]
Astfel potrivit unui studiu publicat pe ["Q-03 Com cercet\u0103torilor din Santa Barbara ( California ) arat\u0103 what a N cuantic aflat \u00cen lucru a executat cu ajutorul unui procesor superconductor programabil o sarcin\u0103 ce ?"] "
pe ["Q-04 Com cercet\u0103torilor din Santa Barbara ( California ) arat\u0103 what un deziderat existent \u00eenc\u0103 din 1980 super computerul cuantic aflat \u00een lucru ?"] "
Google \u00ee\u0219i proclam\u0103 suprema\u021bia cuantic\u0103 Google a anun\u021bat ieri c\u0103 a f\u0103cut un pas tehnologic important \u00een dezvoltarea computerelor cuantice. Astfel potrivit unui studiu publicat pe nature.com cercet\u0103torilor din Santa Barbara (California) arat\u0103 faptul c\u0103 au atins un deziderat existent \u00eenc\u0103 din 1980 super computerul cuantic aflat \u00een lucru a executat cu ajutorul unui procesor superconductor programabil o sarcin\u0103 ce... citesteThe post Google \u00ee\u0219i proclam\u0103 suprema\u021bia cuantic\u0103 appeared first on Revista connect Romania. ["Q-05 ]
Google \u00ee\u0219i proclam\u0103 suprema\u021bia cuantic\u0103 Google a anun\u021bat ieri c\u0103 a f\u0103cut un pas tehnologic important \u00een dezvoltarea computerelor cuantice. Astfel potrivit unui studiu publicat pe nature.com cercet\u0103torilor din Santa Barbara (California) arat\u0103 faptul c\u0103 au atins un deziderat existent \u00eenc\u0103 din 1980 super computerul cuantic aflat \u00een lucru a executat cu ajutorul unui procesor superconductor programabil o sarcin\u0103 ce... citesteThe post Google \u00ee\u0219i proclam\u0103 suprema\u021bia cuantic\u0103 appeared first on Revista connect Romania. ["Q-06 ]
Google \u00ee\u0219i proclam\u0103 suprema\u021bia cuantic\u0103 Google a anun\u021bat ieri c\u0103 a f\u0103cut un pas tehnologic important \u00een dezvoltarea computerelor cuantice. Astfel potrivit unui studiu publicat pe nature.com cercet\u0103torilor din Santa Barbara (California) arat\u0103 faptul c\u0103 au atins un deziderat existent \u00eenc\u0103 din 1980 super computerul cuantic aflat \u00een lucru a executat cu ajutorul unui procesor superconductor programabil o sarcin\u0103 ce... citesteThe post Google \u00ee\u0219i proclam\u0103 suprema\u021bia cuantic\u0103 appeared first on Revista connect Romania. ["Q-07 ]
Revista connect Romania ["Q-08 On what did citestethe post Google \u00ce\u0219i proclam\u0103 suprema\u021bia cuantic\u0103 appeared first ?"] "
citesteThe post Google \u00ee\u0219i proclam\u0103 suprema\u021bia cuantic\u0103 ["Q-09 Who appeared first on Revista connect Romania ?"] "
Google \u00ee\u0219i proclam\u0103 suprema\u021bia cuantic\u0103 Google a anun\u021bat ieri c\u0103 a f\u0103cut un pas tehnologic important \u00een dezvoltarea computerelor cuantice. Astfel potrivit unui studiu publicat pe nature.com cercet\u0103torilor din Santa Barbara (California) arat\u0103 faptul c\u0103 au atins un deziderat existent \u00eenc\u0103 din 1980 super computerul cuantic aflat \u00een lucru a executat cu ajutorul unui procesor superconductor programabil o sarcin\u0103 ce... citesteThe post Google \u00ee\u0219i proclam\u0103 suprema\u021bia cuantic\u0103 appeared first on Revista connect Romania. ["Q-010 ]
Google \u00ee\u0219i proclam\u0103 suprema\u021bia cuantic\u0103 Google a anun\u021bat ieri c\u0103 a f\u0103cut un pas tehnologic important \u00een dezvoltarea computerelor cuantice. Astfel potrivit unui studiu publicat pe nature.com cercet\u0103torilor din Santa Barbara (California) arat\u0103 faptul c\u0103 au atins un deziderat existent \u00eenc\u0103 din 1980 super computerul cuantic aflat \u00een lucru a executat cu ajutorul unui procesor superconductor programabil o sarcin\u0103 ce... citesteThe post Google \u00ee\u0219i proclam\u0103 suprema\u021bia cuantic\u0103 appeared first on Revista connect Romania. ["Q-011 ]
citesteThe post Google \u00ee\u0219i proclam\u0103 suprema\u021bia cuantic\u0103 ["Q-01 Who appeared first on Revista connect Romania ?"] "
Google \u00ee\u0219i proclam\u0103 suprema\u021bia cuantic\u0103 Google a anun\u021bat ieri c\u0103 a f\u0103cut un pas ["Q-01 ]
Google \u00ee\u0219i proclam\u0103 suprema\u021bia cuantic\u0103 Google a anun\u021bat ieri c\u0103 a f\u0103cut un pas tehnologic important \u00een dezvoltarea computerelor cuantice. Astfel potrivit unui studiu publicat pe nature.com cercet\u0103torilor din Santa Barbara (California) arat\u0103 faptul c\u0103 au atins un deziderat existent \u00eenc\u0103 din 1980 super computerul cuantic aflat \u00een lucru a executat cu ajutorul unui procesor superconductor programabil o sarcin\u0103 ce... citesteThe post Google \u00ee\u0219i proclam\u0103 suprema\u021bia cuantic\u0103 appeared first on Revista connect Romania. ["Q-02 ]
Astfel potrivit unui studiu publicat pe ["Q-03 Com cercet\u0103torilor din Santa Barbara ( California ) arat\u0103 what a N cuantic aflat \u00cen lucru a executat cu ajutorul unui procesor superconductor programabil o sarcin\u0103 ce ?"] "
pe ["Q-04 Com cercet\u0103torilor din Santa Barbara ( California ) arat\u0103 what un deziderat existent \u00eenc\u0103 din 1980 super computerul cuantic aflat \u00een lucru ?"] "
Google \u00ee\u0219i proclam\u0103 suprema\u021bia cuantic\u0103 Google a anun\u021bat ieri c\u0103 a f\u0103cut un pas tehnologic important \u00een dezvoltarea computerelor cuantice. Astfel potrivit unui studiu publicat pe nature.com cercet\u0103torilor din Santa Barbara (California) arat\u0103 faptul c\u0103 au atins un deziderat existent \u00eenc\u0103 din 1980 super computerul cuantic aflat \u00een lucru a executat cu ajutorul unui procesor superconductor programabil o sarcin\u0103 ce... citesteThe post Google \u00ee\u0219i proclam\u0103 suprema\u021bia cuantic\u0103 appeared first on Revista connect Romania. ["Q-05 ]
Google \u00ee\u0219i proclam\u0103 suprema\u021bia cuantic\u0103 Google a anun\u021bat ieri c\u0103 a f\u0103cut un pas tehnologic important \u00een dezvoltarea computerelor cuantice. Astfel potrivit unui studiu publicat pe nature.com cercet\u0103torilor din Santa Barbara (California) arat\u0103 faptul c\u0103 au atins un deziderat existent \u00eenc\u0103 din 1980 super computerul cuantic aflat \u00een lucru a executat cu ajutorul unui procesor superconductor programabil o sarcin\u0103 ce... citesteThe post Google \u00ee\u0219i proclam\u0103 suprema\u021bia cuantic\u0103 appeared first on Revista connect Romania. ["Q-06 ]
Google \u00ee\u0219i proclam\u0103 suprema\u021bia cuantic\u0103 Google a anun\u021bat ieri c\u0103 a f\u0103cut un pas tehnologic important \u00een dezvoltarea computerelor cuantice. Astfel potrivit unui studiu publicat pe nature.com cercet\u0103torilor din Santa Barbara (California) arat\u0103 faptul c\u0103 au atins un deziderat existent \u00eenc\u0103 din 1980 super computerul cuantic aflat \u00een lucru a executat cu ajutorul unui procesor superconductor programabil o sarcin\u0103 ce... citesteThe post Google \u00ee\u0219i proclam\u0103 suprema\u021bia cuantic\u0103 appeared first on Revista connect Romania. ["Q-07 ]
Revista connect Romania ["Q-08 On what did citestethe post Google \u00ce\u0219i proclam\u0103 suprema\u021bia cuantic\u0103 appeared first ?"] "
citesteThe post Google \u00ee\u0219i proclam\u0103 suprema\u021bia cuantic\u0103 ["Q-09 Who appeared first on Revista connect Romania ?"] "
Google \u00ee\u0219i proclam\u0103 suprema\u021bia cuantic\u0103 Google a anun\u021bat ieri c\u0103 a f\u0103cut un pas tehnologic important \u00een dezvoltarea computerelor cuantice. Astfel potrivit unui studiu publicat pe nature.com cercet\u0103torilor din Santa Barbara (California) arat\u0103 faptul c\u0103 au atins un deziderat existent \u00eenc\u0103 din 1980 super computerul cuantic aflat \u00een lucru a executat cu ajutorul unui procesor superconductor programabil o sarcin\u0103 ce... citesteThe post Google \u00ee\u0219i proclam\u0103 suprema\u021bia cuantic\u0103 appeared first on Revista connect Romania. ["Q-010 ]
Google \u00ee\u0219i proclam\u0103 suprema\u021bia cuantic\u0103 Google a anun\u021bat ieri c\u0103 a f\u0103cut un pas tehnologic important \u00een dezvoltarea computerelor cuantice. Astfel potrivit unui studiu publicat pe nature.com cercet\u0103torilor din Santa Barbara (California) arat\u0103 faptul c\u0103 au atins un deziderat existent \u00eenc\u0103 din 1980 super computerul cuantic aflat \u00een lucru a executat cu ajutorul unui procesor superconductor programabil o sarcin\u0103 ce... citesteThe post Google \u00ee\u0219i proclam\u0103 suprema\u021bia cuantic\u0103 appeared first on Revista connect Romania. ["Q-011 ]
flight ["Q-01 Has Boeing Launches Foreflight Dispatch for Business Aircraft Foreflight tapped resources available from boeing its new owner and created a \u201c super computer \u201d for flight planning for business aviation called Foreflight Dispatch ?"] "
flight ["Q-02 Has Boeing Launches Foreflight Dispatch for Business Aircraft Foreflight tapped resources available from boeing its new owner and created a \u201c super computer \u201d for flight planning for business aviation called Foreflight Dispatch ?"] "
resources ["Q-03 What has Boeing Launches Foreflight Dispatch for Business Aircraft Foreflight tapped available from boeing its new owner and created a \u201c super computer \u201d for flight planning for business aviation called Foreflight Dispatch ?"] "
Dispatch For Business Aircraft ForeFlight ["Q-04 Who has tapped t D resources available from boeing its new owner and created a \u201c super computer \u201d for flight planning for business aviation called Foreflight Dispatch ?"] "
Boeing Launches ["Q-05 Who boeing its new owner and created a \u201c super computer \u201d for flight planning for business aviation called Foreflight Dispatch ?"] "
Boeing Launches ForeFlight Dispatch ["Q-06 Who created a \u201c super computer \u201d for flight planning for business aviation called Foreflight Dispatch ?"] "
Boeing Launches ForeFlight Dispatch For Business Aircraft ForeFlight has tapped the resources available from Boeing ["Q-07 Who called Foreflight Dispatch ?"] "
Founder and CEO Tyson Weihs ["Q-08 Who explains how it works ?"] "
Founder and CEO Tyson Weihs ["Q-09 Who works ?"] "
flight ["Q-01 Has Boeing Launches Foreflight Dispatch for Business Aircraft Foreflight tapped resources available from boeing its new owner and created a \u201c super computer \u201d for flight planning for business aviation called Foreflight Dispatch ?"] "
flight ["Q-02 Has Boeing Launches Foreflight Dispatch for Business Aircraft Foreflight tapped resources available from boeing its new owner and created a \u201c super computer \u201d for flight planning for business aviation called Foreflight Dispatch ?"] "
Boeing ["Q-03 From what has boeing Launches Foreflight Dispatch for Business Aircraft Foreflight tapped D resources available new owner and created a \u201c super computer \u201d for flight planning for business aviation called Foreflight Dispatch ?"] "
flight planning ["Q-04 Boeing Launches Foreflight Dispatch for Business Aircraft Foreflight has tapped t D resources available from boeing its for what did new owner and created a \u201c super computer \u201d for business aviation called Foreflight Dispatch ?"] "
business aviation ["Q-05 Boeing Launches Foreflight Dispatch for Business Aircraft Foreflight has tapped t D resources available from boeing its for what did new owner and created a \u201c super computer \u201d for flight planning called Foreflight Dispatch ?"] "
resources ["Q-06 What has Boeing Launches Foreflight Dispatch for Business Aircraft Foreflight tapped available from boeing its new owner and created a \u201c super computer \u201d for flight planning for business aviation called Foreflight Dispatch ?"] "
resources ["Q-07 Boeing Launches Foreflight Dispatch for Business Aircraft Foreflight has tapped t D resources what available from boeing Boeing new owner and created a \u201c super computer \u201d for flight planning for business aviation called Foreflight Dispatch ?"] "
a \u201csuper computer ["Q-08 Boeing Launches Foreflight Dispatch for Business Aircraft Foreflight has tapped t D resources available from boeing its what did new owner and created for flight planning for business aviation called Foreflight Dispatch ?"] "
ForeFlight Dispatch ["Q-09 Boeing Launches Foreflight Dispatch for Business Aircraft Foreflight has tapped t D resources available from boeing its new owner and created what did a \u201c super computer \u201d for flight planning for business aviation called ?"] "
Founder and CEO Tyson Weihs ["Q-010 Boeing Launches Foreflight Dispatch for Business Aircraft Foreflight has tapped whose resources available from boeing its new owner and created a \u201c super computer \u201d for flight planning for business aviation called Foreflight Dispatch ?"] "
Dispatch For Business Aircraft ForeFlight ["Q-011 Who has tapped t D resources available from boeing its new owner and created a \u201c super computer \u201d for flight planning for business aviation called Foreflight Dispatch ?"] "
Boeing Launches ["Q-012 Who boeing its new owner and created a \u201c super computer \u201d for flight planning for business aviation called Foreflight Dispatch ?"] "
Boeing Launches ForeFlight Dispatch For Business Aircraft ForeFlight has tapped the resources available from Boeing ["Q-013 Who created a \u201c super computer \u201d for flight planning for business aviation called Foreflight Dispatch ?"] "
Boeing ["Q-014 Who called Foreflight Dispatch ?"] "
flight ["Q-015 T how much has Boeing Launches Foreflight Dispatch for Business Aircraft Foreflight tapped resources available from boeing its new owner and created a \u201c super computer \u201d for flight planning for business aviation called Foreflight Dispatch ?"] "
Boeing Launches ForeFlight Dispatch For Business Aircraft ForeFlight ["Q-016 Boeing Launches Foreflight Dispatch for Business Aircraft Foreflight has tapped how much t t N N N resources available from boeing its new owner and created a \u201c super computer \u201d for flight planning for business aviation called Foreflight Dispatch ?"] "
The post Boeing ["Q-017 ]
Founder and CEO Tyson Weihs ["Q-018 Who explains how it works ?"] "
Founder and CEO Tyson Weihs ["Q-019 Who works ?"] "
Boeing Launches ForeFlight Dispatch For Business Aircraft ForeFlight has tapped the resources available from Boeing its new owner and created a \u201csuper computer\u201d for flight planning for business aviation called ForeFlight Dispatch. Founder and CEO Tyson Weihs explains how it works. The post Boeing ["Q-020 ]
The post Boeing ["Q-021 ]
Boeing Launches ForeFlight Dispatch For Business Aircraft ForeFlight has tapped the resources available from Boeing its new owner and created a \u201csuper computer\u201d for flight planning for business aviation called ForeFlight Dispatch. Founder and CEO Tyson Weihs explains how it works. The post Boeing ["Q-022 ]
The post Boeing ["Q-023 ]
The post Boeing ["Q-024 ]
flight ["Q-01 Has Boeing Launches Foreflight Dispatch for Business Aircraft Foreflight tapped resources available from boeing its new owner and created a \u201c super computer \u201d for flight planning for business aviation called Foreflight Dispatch ?"] "
flight ["Q-02 Has Boeing Launches Foreflight Dispatch for Business Aircraft Foreflight tapped resources available from boeing its new owner and created a \u201c super computer \u201d for flight planning for business aviation called Foreflight Dispatch ?"] "
resources ["Q-03 What has Boeing Launches Foreflight Dispatch for Business Aircraft Foreflight tapped available from boeing its new owner and created a \u201c super computer \u201d for flight planning for business aviation called Foreflight Dispatch ?"] "
Dispatch For Business Aircraft ForeFlight ["Q-04 Who has tapped t D resources available from boeing its new owner and created a \u201c super computer \u201d for flight planning for business aviation called Foreflight Dispatch ?"] "
Boeing Launches ["Q-05 Who boeing its new owner and created a \u201c super computer \u201d for flight planning for business aviation called Foreflight Dispatch ?"] "
Boeing Launches ForeFlight Dispatch ["Q-06 Who created a \u201c super computer \u201d for flight planning for business aviation called Foreflight Dispatch ?"] "
Boeing Launches ForeFlight Dispatch For Business Aircraft ForeFlight has tapped the resources available from Boeing ["Q-07 Who called Foreflight Dispatch ?"] "
Founder and CEO Tyson Weihs ["Q-08 Who explains how it works ?"] "
Founder and CEO Tyson Weihs ["Q-09 Who works ?"] "
flight ["Q-01 Has Boeing Launches Foreflight Dispatch for Business Aircraft Foreflight tapped resources available from boeing its new owner and created a \u201c super computer \u201d for flight planning for business aviation called Foreflight Dispatch ?"] "
flight ["Q-02 Has Boeing Launches Foreflight Dispatch for Business Aircraft Foreflight tapped resources available from boeing its new owner and created a \u201c super computer \u201d for flight planning for business aviation called Foreflight Dispatch ?"] "
Boeing ["Q-03 From what has boeing Launches Foreflight Dispatch for Business Aircraft Foreflight tapped D resources available new owner and created a \u201c super computer \u201d for flight planning for business aviation called Foreflight Dispatch ?"] "
flight planning ["Q-04 Boeing Launches Foreflight Dispatch for Business Aircraft Foreflight has tapped t D resources available from boeing its for what did new owner and created a \u201c super computer \u201d for business aviation called Foreflight Dispatch ?"] "
business aviation ["Q-05 Boeing Launches Foreflight Dispatch for Business Aircraft Foreflight has tapped t D resources available from boeing its for what did new owner and created a \u201c super computer \u201d for flight planning called Foreflight Dispatch ?"] "
resources ["Q-06 What has Boeing Launches Foreflight Dispatch for Business Aircraft Foreflight tapped available from boeing its new owner and created a \u201c super computer \u201d for flight planning for business aviation called Foreflight Dispatch ?"] "
resources ["Q-07 Boeing Launches Foreflight Dispatch for Business Aircraft Foreflight has tapped t D resources what available from boeing Boeing new owner and created a \u201c super computer \u201d for flight planning for business aviation called Foreflight Dispatch ?"] "
a \u201csuper computer ["Q-08 Boeing Launches Foreflight Dispatch for Business Aircraft Foreflight has tapped t D resources available from boeing its what did new owner and created for flight planning for business aviation called Foreflight Dispatch ?"] "
ForeFlight Dispatch ["Q-09 Boeing Launches Foreflight Dispatch for Business Aircraft Foreflight has tapped t D resources available from boeing its new owner and created what did a \u201c super computer \u201d for flight planning for business aviation called ?"] "
Founder and CEO Tyson Weihs ["Q-010 Boeing Launches Foreflight Dispatch for Business Aircraft Foreflight has tapped whose resources available from boeing its new owner and created a \u201c super computer \u201d for flight planning for business aviation called Foreflight Dispatch ?"] "
Dispatch For Business Aircraft ForeFlight ["Q-011 Who has tapped t D resources available from boeing its new owner and created a \u201c super computer \u201d for flight planning for business aviation called Foreflight Dispatch ?"] "
Boeing Launches ["Q-012 Who boeing its new owner and created a \u201c super computer \u201d for flight planning for business aviation called Foreflight Dispatch ?"] "
Boeing Launches ForeFlight Dispatch For Business Aircraft ForeFlight has tapped the resources available from Boeing ["Q-013 Who created a \u201c super computer \u201d for flight planning for business aviation called Foreflight Dispatch ?"] "
Boeing ["Q-014 Who called Foreflight Dispatch ?"] "
flight ["Q-015 T how much has Boeing Launches Foreflight Dispatch for Business Aircraft Foreflight tapped resources available from boeing its new owner and created a \u201c super computer \u201d for flight planning for business aviation called Foreflight Dispatch ?"] "
Boeing Launches ForeFlight Dispatch For Business Aircraft ForeFlight ["Q-016 Boeing Launches Foreflight Dispatch for Business Aircraft Foreflight has tapped how much t t N N N resources available from boeing its new owner and created a \u201c super computer \u201d for flight planning for business aviation called Foreflight Dispatch ?"] "
The post Boeing ["Q-017 ]
Founder and CEO Tyson Weihs ["Q-018 Who explains how it works ?"] "
Founder and CEO Tyson Weihs ["Q-019 Who works ?"] "
Boeing Launches ForeFlight Dispatch For Business Aircraft ForeFlight has tapped the resources available from Boeing its new owner and created a \u201csuper computer\u201d for flight planning for business aviation called ForeFlight Dispatch. Founder and CEO Tyson Weihs explains how it works. The post Boeing ["Q-020 ]
The post Boeing ["Q-021 ]
Boeing Launches ForeFlight Dispatch For Business Aircraft ForeFlight has tapped the resources available from Boeing its new owner and created a \u201csuper computer\u201d for flight planning for business aviation called ForeFlight Dispatch. Founder and CEO Tyson Weihs explains how it works. The post Boeing ["Q-022 ]
The post Boeing ["Q-023 ]
The post Boeing ["Q-024 ]
Europa ["Q-01 Who wel voldoende van de technologie die onze toekomst zal vormgeven ? De vooruitgang in moderne technologie vindt met zeer grote vaart plaats ?"] "
van de technologie ["Q-02 Who met zeer grote vaart plaats ?"] "
al een ["Q-03 Who tot de supercomputers die you in onze broekzak meedragen ?"] "
al een kernonderdeel van de moderne werkplek van geavanceerde printers tot de supercomputers ["Q-04 Who die you in onze broekzak meedragen ?"] "
Maar de vraag ["Q-05 Who het allemaal wel bijhouden al die technologische innovaties ? advances in modern technology are occurring at a lightning speed ?"] "
Advances in modern technology ["Q-06 Who are occurring at a lightning speed ?"] "
Maar de vraag is kunnen we het allemaal wel bijhouden al die technologische innovaties? Advances in modern technology are occurring at a lightning speed. Yet the emergence of new capabilities and disruptive technologies ["Q-07 Who could well be creating a landscape of tech - fatigue ?"] "
core part ["Q-08 What is Technology of the modern workplace from state - of - the - art printers to the super computers you carry in your pockets ?"] "
Technology ["Q-09 Who is already a core part of the modern workplace from state - of - the - art printers to the super computers you carry in your pockets ?"] "
super computers ["Q-10 Who carry in your pockets ?"] "
technological innovation ["Q-11 Who is awareness keeping pace ? Inzicht in het bewustzijn van technologieepson heeft onlangs onderzoek uitgevoerd waarbij 17 internationale branche - experts en meer dan 7000 europese bedrijfsmanagers en werknemers werden ondervraagd ?"] "
het bewustzijn van technologieEpson ["Q-12 Who onderzoek emergence waarbij 17 internationale branche - experts en meer dan 7000 europese bedrijfsmanagers en werknemers werden ondervraagd ?"] "
het een ["Q-13 Who en werknemers werden ondervraagd ?"] "
van de technologie ["Q-14 Who werden ondervraagd ?"] "
van technologie in de industrie als geheel ["Q-15 What Hierin verkenden you d you op de werkplek van de nabije toekomst ?"] "
Hierin verkenden ["Q-16 Who de impact van technologie op de werkplek van de nabije toekomst ?"] "
Uit ons resultaat blijkt overduidelijk dat de snelheid van de transformatie tot vragen leidt die lastig te beantwoorden zijn. Ons onderzoek toont aan dat er een opzienbarende kloof bestaat in het bewustzijn van belangrijke technologieën onder Europese werknemers. Slechts 60 procent van respondenten had wel eens gehoord van wearable technologieën wat betekent dat 4 van de 10 Europese werknemers nog nooit had gehoord van een fundamentele technologie waarvan wordt voorspeld dat deze een grote impact zal hebben op de werkplek van de toekomst.Deze uitdaging wordt verder benadrukt als we kijken naar andere belangrijke technologieën waarbij het bewustzijn aanzienlijk lager was dan dat van wearables. Slechts 37 procent van de Europese werknemers is op de hoogte van technologieën als bio-printing of cobotics (samenwerkende robots). Respondenten legden ook een gebrek aan bewustzijn aan de dag van algemene technologische trends. Slechts 51 procent gaf aan de term ' , Uit " ["Q-18 Who resultaat blijkt overduidelijk dat de snelheid van de transformatie tot vragen leidt die lastig te beantwoorden zijn ?"] "
om de kloof in het bewustzijn te overbruggen en één die ook door werknemers wordt verwelkomd want 68 procent is positief over blended learning 65 procent over onderwijs via samenwerking en 66 proces geeft aan positief te staan tegenover meta-leren. Het streven naar het implementeren van de voordelen van technologie ["Q-19 Who toont aan dat er een opzienbarende kloof bestaat in het bewustzijn van belangrijke technologie & euml ; n onder europese werknemers ?"] "
Slechts 60 ["Q-20 Who had gehoord eens gehoord van wearable technologie & euml ; n wat betekent dat 4 van de 10 europese werknemers nog nooit had gehoord van een fundamentele technologie waarvan wordt voorspeld dat deze een grote impact zal hebben op de werkplek van de toekomst ?"] "
Slechts 60 ["Q-21 Who wat betekent dat 4 van de 10 europese werknemers nog nooit had gehoord van een fundamentele technologie waarvan wordt voorspeld dat deze een grote impact zal hebben op de werkplek van de toekomst ?"] "
Slechts 60 ["Q-22 Who had gehoord van een fundamentele technologie waarvan wordt voorspeld dat deze een grote impact zal hebben op de werkplek van de toekomst ?"] "
Deze uitdaging wordt verder benadrukt als ["Q-23 Who kijken naar andere belangrijke technologie & euml ; n & nbsp ; waarbij het bewustzijn aanzienlijk lager was dan dat van wearables ?"] "
het bewustzijn aanzienlijk lager ["Q-24 Who was dan dat van wearables ?"] "
Slechts 37 ["Q-25 Who is op de hoogte van technologie & euml ; n als bio - printing of cobotics ( samenwerkende robots ) ?"] "
te begrijpen ["Q-26 Who educatieve doeleinden ) en slechts 35 procent verklaarde iets te weten van omni - channel retail ( een aanpak van verkoop met meerdere kanalen waarbij een consistente online en offline ervaring wordt geboden ) ?"] "
35 ["Q-27 Who te weten van omni - channel retail ( een aanpak van verkoop met meerdere kanalen waarbij een consistente online en offline ervaring wordt geboden ) ?"] "
van omni-channel retail ["Q-28 Who met meerdere kanalen waarbij een consistente online en offline ervaring wordt geboden ) ?"] "
van de technologie ["Q-29 Who ervaring wordt geboden ) ?"] "
van omni-channel retail ["Q-30 Who technologie maar kunnen you de interesse verhogen door kennis te vergroten ? Als onderdeel van het onderzoek gaven you een toelichting op verschillende nieuwe technologie & euml ; n aan europese werknemers ?"] "
bij de adoptie van nieuwe technologie maar kunnen we de interesse verhogen door kennis te vergroten? Als onderdeel van het onderzoek gaven we een toelichting op verschillende nieuwe technologieën aan Europese werknemers. Het bleek dat een groter inzicht leidt tot een veel positievere mening. Over de potentiële integratie van de verschillende technologieën op de werkplek werd met meer kennis dan ook veel optimistischer gedacht. Voor wearables bestond een zeer positieve feedback waarbij 65 procent van werknemers deze technologie aantrekkelijk vond. Organisch afdrukken en bio-printing & cobotics werden door respectievelijk 58 procent en 57 procent van ondervraagden verwelkomd. Van alle technologieën die werden genoemd was het echter 3D-printing dat de grootste interesse wekte onder werknemers want 66 procent gaf aan hiervan positieve verwachtingen te hebben. Gezien het diepgaande effect dat 3D-printing naar verwachting zal hebben op de industrie als , Als onderdeel van het onderzoek " ["Q-32 Who een toelichting op verschillende nieuwe technologie & euml ; n aan europese werknemers ?"] "
van de technologie ["Q-33 Who positievere mening ?"] "
van omni-channel retail ["Q-34 What bestond een zeer positieve deze technologie aantrekkelijk vond ?"] "
van de technologie ["Q-35 Who deze technologie aantrekkelijk vond ?"] "
Van ["Q-36 Who was het echter 3d - printing dat de grootste interesse wekte onder werknemers want 66 procent gaf aan hiervan positieve verwachtingen te hebben ?"] "
Van alle technologieën die werden genoemd was het echter ["Q-37 Who want 66 procent gaf aan hiervan positieve verwachtingen te hebben ?"] "
Gezien ["Q-38 Who geheel en met name in de productie- en retailsector vormt het een aanzienlijke geruststelling dat werknemers openstonden voor de mogelijke impact van de technologie wanneer ze Zich beter bewust waren van de kenmerken en mogelijkheden ?"] "
Gezien het diepgaande ["Q-39 Who met name in de productie- en retailsector vormt het een aanzienlijke geruststelling dat werknemers openstonden voor de mogelijke impact van de technologie wanneer ze Zich beter bewust waren van de kenmerken en mogelijkheden ?"] "
een ["Q-40 Who wordt verwelkomd want 68 procent is positief over blended learning 65 procent over onderwijs via samenwerking en 66 proces geeft aan positief te staan tegenover meta - leren ?"] "
Streef ernaar het bewustzijn te verhogenTechnologische vooruitgang in het onderwijs biedt een andere mogelijkheid om de kloof ["Q-41 Who want 68 procent is positief over blended learning 65 procent over onderwijs via samenwerking en 66 proces geeft aan positief te staan tegenover meta - leren ?"] "
een ["Q-42 Who is positief over blended learning 65 procent over onderwijs via samenwerking en 66 proces geeft aan positief te staan tegenover meta - leren ?"] "
Streef ernaar het bewustzijn te verhogenTechnologische vooruitgang in het onderwijs biedt een andere mogelijkheid om de kloof ["Q-43 Who blended bewustzijn 65 procent over onderwijs via samenwerking en 66 proces geeft aan positief te staan tegenover meta - leren ?"] "
Streef ernaar ["Q-44 Who samenwerking en 66 proces geeft aan positief te staan tegenover meta - leren ?"] "
een ["Q-45 Who geeft aan positief te staan tegenover meta - leren ?"] "
Streef ernaar het bewustzijn te verhogenTechnologische vooruitgang in het onderwijs biedt een andere mogelijkheid om de kloof in het bewustzijn te overbruggen en één die ook door werknemers wordt verwelkomd want 68 procent is positief over blended learning 65 procent over onderwijs via samenwerking en 66 proces geeft aan positief te staan tegenover meta-leren. Het streven naar het implementeren van de voordelen van technologie in de industrie als geheel is belangrijk maar we moeten even hard werken aan het optimaliseren van de geboden mogelijkheden. Hier spelen organisaties een cruciale rol. Momenteel is slechts 14 procent van werknemers van mening dat hun organisatie het 'uitstekend' ["Q-46 What Het streven n J de voordelen van technologie in de industrie als geheel is belangrijk maar you moeten even hard werken aan het optimaliseren van de geboden
ze ["Q-47 Who streven naar het implementeren van de voordelen van technologie in de industrie als geheel is belangrijk maar you moeten even hard werken aan het optimaliseren van de geboden mogelijkheden ?"] "
van technologie in de industrie als geheel ["Q-48 Who is belangrijk maar you moeten even hard werken aan het optimaliseren van de geboden mogelijkheden ?"] "
van technologie ["Q-49 Who moeten even hard werken aan het optimaliseren van de geboden mogelijkheden ?"] "
van de technologie ["Q-50 Who een cruciale rol ?"] "
Momenteel is slechts 14 procent van werknemers van mening dat hun organisatie het 'uitstekend' ["Q-51 What is Momenteel procent van werknemers van mening dat hun organisatie het & # 39 ; uitstekend & # 39 ; doet op het gebied van het bijhouden van de nieuwste technologische ontwikkelingen ?"] "
Momenteel ["Q-52 Who is slechts 14 procent van werknemers van mening dat hun organisatie het & # 39 ; uitstekend & # 39 ; doet op het gebied van het bijhouden van de nieuwste technologische ontwikkelingen ?"] "
Momenteel ["Q-53 Who van mening dat hun organisatie het & # 39 ; uitstekend & # 39 ; doet op het gebied van het bijhouden van de nieuwste technologische ontwikkelingen ?"] "
doet ["Q-54 Who op het gebied van het bijhouden van de nieuwste technologische ontwikkelingen ?"] "
Als organisaties niet streven naar dieper inzicht in deze veranderende technologische context ["Q-55 Who is het nauwelijks voor te stellen dat werknemers deze veranderingen via grotere kennis kunnen bijbenen ?"] "
voor te stellen dat ["Q-56 Who deze veranderingen via grotere kennis kunnen bijbenen ?"] "
van de technologie ["Q-57 Who grotere kennis organisaties bijbenen ?"] "
Uiteindelijk leidt technologie als ["Q-58 Who alleenstaand fenomeen niet tot succes dit wordt behaald via een geslaagde implementatie van de geboden mogelijkheden ?"] "
Momenteel is slechts 14 procent van werknemers van mening dat hun organisatie het 'uitstekend' ["Q-59 What Als you o J van een revolutie in de technologie voor de werkplek moeten you als eerste stap het bewustzijn erover in de industrie als geheel verhogen ?"] "
Als ["Q-60 Who ooit willen profiteren van een revolutie in de technologie voor de werkplek moeten you als eerste stap het bewustzijn erover in de industrie als geheel verhogen ?"] "
van een ["Q-61 Who eerste stap het bewustzijn erover in de industrie als geheel verhogen ?"] "
van de technologie ["Q-62 Who geheel verhogen ?"] "
Technologisch bewustzijn in Europa weten we wel voldoende van de technologie die onze toekomst zal vormgeven? De vooruitgang in moderne technologie vindt ["Q-01 Technologisch bewustzijn in Europa weten in what you wel voldoende van de technologie die onze toekomst zal vormgeven ? De vooruitgang met zeer grote vaart plaats ?"] "
Technologisch bewustzijn ["Q-02 Technologisch bewustzijn in Europa whom w w N N N wel voldoende van de technologie die onze toekomst zal vormgeven ? De vooruitgang in moderne technologie vindt met zeer grote vaart plaats ?"] "
Technologisch bewustzijn ["Q-03 Technologisch bewustzijn in Europa weten what you w N de technologie die onze toekomst zal vormgeven ? De vooruitgang in moderne technologie vindt met zeer grote vaart plaats ?"] "
zeer ["Q-04 Technologisch bewustzijn in Europa weten you wel voldoende van de technologie die onze toekomst zal vormgeven ? De vooruitgang in what moderne technologie vindt met ?"] "
Europa ["Q-05 Who wel voldoende van de technologie die onze toekomst zal vormgeven ? De vooruitgang in moderne technologie vindt met zeer grote vaart plaats ?"] "
van de technologie ["Q-06 Who met zeer grote vaart plaats ?"] "
Slechts 51 procent gaf aan de term 'blended ["Q-07 ]
7000 ["Q-08 Maar de opkomst van nieuwe mogelijkheden en technologie & euml ; n zou ook heel what g g N N N een soort technologie - moeheid ?"] "
39;blended ["Q-09 ]
die te lijden hebben onder deze stortvloed aan technologische innovatie. Technologie vormt al een kernonderdeel van de moderne werkplek van geavanceerde printers tot de supercomputers die we in onze broekzak meedragen. Maar de vraag is kunnen we het allemaal wel bijhouden al die technologische innovaties? Advances in modern technology are occurring at a lightning speed. Yet the emergence of new capabilities and disruptive technologies could well be creating a landscape of tech-fatigue. It\u2019s not simply consumers who are suffering from this tidal wave of technological innovation. Technology is already a core part of the modern workplace from state-of-the-art printers to the super computers we carry in our pockets. With the emergence of so much technological innovation is awareness keeping pace?Inzicht in het bewustzijn van technologieEpson heeft onlangs onderzoek uitgevoerd waarbij 17 internationale branche-experts en meer dan 7000 Europese bedrijfsmanagers en werknemers werden , Maar de opkomst van nieuwe mogelijkheden en technologieën zou ook heel goed kunnen leiden tot een soort technologie-moeheid. Het zijn niet alleen consumenten die te lijden hebben onder deze stortvloed aan technologische innovatie. Technologie vormt al een kernonderdeel van de moderne werkplek van geavanceerde printers tot de supercomputers die we in onze broekzak meedragen. Maar de vraag is kunnen we het allemaal wel bijhouden al die technologische innovaties? Advances in modern technology are occurring at a lightning speed. Yet the emergence of new capabilities and disruptive technologies could well be creating a landscape of tech-fatigue. It\u2019s not simply consumers who are suffering from this tidal wave of technological innovation. Technology is already a core part of the modern workplace from state-of-the-art printers to the super computers we carry in our pockets. With the emergence of so much technological innovation is awareness keeping pace?Inzicht in het bewustzijn
Technologisch bewustzijn in Europa weten we wel voldoende van de technologie die onze toekomst zal vormgeven? De vooruitgang in moderne technologie vindt met zeer grote vaart plaats. Maar de opkomst van nieuwe mogelijkheden en technologieën zou ook heel goed kunnen leiden tot een soort technologie-moeheid. Het zijn niet alleen consumenten die te lijden hebben onder deze stortvloed aan technologische innovatie. Technologie vormt al een kernonderdeel van de moderne werkplek van geavanceerde printers tot de supercomputers die we in onze broekzak meedragen. Maar de vraag is kunnen we het allemaal wel bijhouden al die technologische innovaties? Advances in modern technology are occurring at a lightning speed. Yet the emergence of new capabilities and disruptive technologies could well be creating a landscape of tech-fatigue. It\u2019s not simply consumers who are suffering from this tidal wave of technological innovation. Technology is already a core part of the modern workplace fr , Maar de opkomst van nieuwe mogelijkheden en technologieën zou ook heel goed kunnen leiden tot een soort technologie-moeheid. Het zijn niet alleen consumenten die te lijden hebben onder deze stortvloed aan technologische innovatie. Technologie vormt al een kernonderdeel van de moderne werkplek van geavanceerde printers tot de supercomputers " ["Q-013 Technologie vormt al een kernonderdeel van de moderne de what werkplek van geavanceerde printers tot die you in onze broekzak meedragen ?"] "
te lijden hebben onder deze stortvloed aan technologische innovatie. Technologie vormt al een kernonderdeel van de moderne werkplek van geavanceerde printers tot de supercomputers die we in onze broekzak meedragen ["Q-014 Technologie vormt al een kernonderdeel van de moderne werkplek van geavanceerde printers tot in what de supercomputers die you ?"] "
Maar de opkomst van nieuwe ["Q-015 Technologie vormt al een kernonderdeel van de moderne werkplek van geavanceerde printers tot whom de supercomputers d N in onze broekzak meedragen ?"] "
al een ["Q-016 Who tot de supercomputers die you in onze broekzak meedragen ?"] "
al een kernonderdeel van de moderne werkplek van geavanceerde printers tot de supercomputers ["Q-017 Who die you in onze broekzak meedragen ?"] "
39;blended learning' ["Q-018 ]
modern technology ["Q-019 Maar de vraag is in what kunnen you het allemaal wel bijhouden al die technologische innovaties ? advances are occurring at a lightning speed ?"] "
lightning speed ["Q-020 Maar de vraag is kunnen you het allemaal wel bijhouden al die technologische innovaties ? advances in at what are modern technology occurring ?"] "
al die technologische innovaties ["Q-021 Maar de vraag is what kunnen you h N ? advances in modern technology are occurring at a lightning speed ?"] "
Maar de vraag ["Q-022 Maar de vraag is kunnen you het allemaal wel bijhouden al die technologische innovaties ? advances in what are modern technology occurring at a lightning speed ?"] "
Maar de vraag ["Q-023 Who het allemaal wel bijhouden al die technologische innovaties ? advances in modern technology are occurring at a lightning speed ?"] "
Advances in modern technology ["Q-024 Who are occurring at a lightning speed ?"] "
39;blended learning' ["Q-025 ]
tech-fatigue ["Q-026 Yet the emergence of new capabilities and disruptive technologies could well be creating a landscape ?"] "
lightning speed ["Q-027 Yet the emergence of new capabilities and what disruptive technologies could well be creating of tech - fatigue ?"] "
new capabilities and disruptive technologies ["Q-028 Who could well be creating a landscape of tech - fatigue ?"] "
39;blended learning' ["Q-029 ]
tidal wave ["Q-030 From what it \u2019 s not simply consumers who are suffering of technological innovation ?"] "
technological innovation ["Q-031 Of what it \u2019 s not simply consumers who are suffering from this tidal wave ?"] "
39;blended ["Q-032 ]
super computers ["Q-033 To what is Technology already a core part of the modern workplace from state - of - the - art printers carry in your pockets ?"] "
modern workplace ["Q-034 Of what is Technology already a core part from state - of - the - art printers to the super computers you carry in your pockets ?"] "
state-of-the-art printers ["Q-035 From what is Technology already a core part of the modern workplace to the super computers you carry in your pockets ?"] "
our pockets ["Q-036 Technology is already a core part of the modern workplace from state - of - the - art printers to in what the super computers you carry ?"] "
core part ["Q-037 What is Technology of the modern workplace from state - of - the - art printers to the super computers you carry in your pockets ?"] "
Technology ["Q-038 Who is already a core part of the modern workplace from state - of - the - art printers to the super computers you carry in your pockets ?"] "
state-of-the-art printers to the super computers ["Q-039 Who carry in your pockets ?"] "
Technologisch bewustzijn in Europa weten we wel voldoende van de technologie die onze toekomst zal vormgeven? De vooruitgang in moderne technologie vindt met zeer grote vaart plaats. Maar de opkomst van nieuwe mogelijkheden en technologieën zou ook heel goed kunnen leiden tot een soort technologie-moeheid. Het zijn niet alleen consumenten die te lijden hebben onder deze stortvloed aan technologische innovatie. Technologie vormt al een kernonderdeel van de moderne werkplek van geavanceerde printers tot de supercomputers die we in onze broekzak meedragen. Maar de vraag is kunnen we het allemaal wel bijhouden al die technologische innovaties? Advances in modern technology are occurring at a lightning speed. Yet the emergence of new capabilities and disruptive technologies could well be creating a landscape of tech-fatigue. It\u2019s not simply consumers who are suffering from this tidal wave of technological innovation. Technology is already a core part of the modern workplace fr , het bewustzijn van technologieEpson " ["Q-041 With the emergence of so in what is much technological innovation awareness keeping pace ? Inzicht heeft onlangs onderzoek uitgevoerd waarbij 17 internationale branche - experts en meer dan 7000 europese bedrijfsmanagers en werknemers werden ondervraagd ?"] "
het bewustzijn van technologieEpson ["Q-042 With the emergence of so much technological innovation is awareness keeping pace ? Inzicht in het bewustzijn van technologieepson heeft en what onlangs onderzoek waarbij 17 internationale branche - experts europese bedrijfsmanagers en werknemers werden ondervraagd ?"] "
awareness keeping pace?Inzicht ["Q-043 With the emergence of so is much technological innovation ? Inzicht in het bewustzijn van technologieepson heeft onlangs onderzoek uitgevoerd waarbij 17 internationale branche - experts en meer dan 7000 europese bedrijfsmanagers en werknemers werden ondervraagd ?"] "
pace?Inzicht ["Q-044 With the emergence of so much technological innovation is awareness keeping pace ? Inzicht in h N bewustzijn van technologieepson what h h N N N onderzoek uitgevoerd waarbij 17 internationale branche - experts en meer dan 7000 europese bedrijfsmanagers en werknemers werden ondervraagd ?"] "
17 ["Q-045 With the emergence of so much technological innovation is awareness keeping pace ? Inzicht in het bewustzijn van technologieepson heeft what onlangs o internationale branche - experts en meer dan 7000 europese bedrijfsmanagers en werknemers werden ondervraagd ?"] "
Maar de opkomst van nieuwe mogelijkheden en technologieën zou ook heel goed kunnen leiden tot een soort technologie-moeheid. Het zijn niet alleen consumenten die te lijden hebben onder deze stortvloed aan technologische innovatie. Technologie vormt al een kernonderdeel van de moderne werkplek van geavanceerde printers tot de supercomputers die we in onze broekzak meedragen. Maar de vraag is kunnen we het allemaal wel bijhouden al die technologische innovaties? Advances in modern technology are occurring at a lightning speed. Yet the emergence of new capabilities and disruptive technologies could well be creating a landscape of tech-fatigue. It\u2019s not simply consumers who are suffering from this tidal wave of technological innovation. Technology is already a core part of the modern workplace from state-of-the-art printers to the super computers we carry in our pockets. With the emergence of so much technological innovation is awareness keeping pace?Inzicht question_token , Maar de vraag is kunnen we het allemaal wel bijhouden al die technologische innovaties? Advances in modern technology are occurring at a lightning speed. Yet the emergence of new capabilities and disruptive technologies could well be creating a landscape of tech-fatigue. It\u2019s not simply consumers who are suffering from this tidal wave of technological innovation. Technology is already a core part of the modern workplace from state-of-the-art printers to the super computers we carry in our pockets. With the emergence of so much technological innovation is awareness keeping pace?Inzicht " ["Q-047 With the emergence of so much technological innovation is awareness keeping pace ? Inzicht in het bewustzijn van technologieepson heeft onlangs onderzoek uitgevoerd waarbij 17 internationale branche - experts en meer dan 7000 europese bedrijfsmanagers en"
technological innovation ["Q-048 Who is awareness keeping pace ? Inzicht in het bewustzijn van technologieepson heeft onlangs onderzoek uitgevoerd waarbij 17 internationale branche - experts en meer dan 7000 europese bedrijfsmanagers en werknemers werden ondervraagd ?"] "
het bewustzijn van technologieEpson ["Q-049 Who onderzoek emergence waarbij 17 internationale branche - experts en meer dan 7000 europese bedrijfsmanagers en werknemers werden ondervraagd ?"] "
voor de mogelijke ["Q-050 Who en werknemers werden ondervraagd ?"] "
van de technologie ["Q-051 Who werden ondervraagd ?"] "
Technologisch bewustzijn in Europa weten we wel voldoende van de technologie die onze toekomst zal vormgeven? De vooruitgang in moderne technologie vindt met zeer grote vaart plaats. Maar de opkomst van nieuwe mogelijkheden en technologieën zou ook heel goed kunnen leiden tot een soort technologie-moeheid. Het zijn niet alleen consumenten die te lijden hebben onder deze stortvloed aan technologische innovatie. Technologie vormt al een kernonderdeel van de moderne werkplek van geavanceerde printers tot de supercomputers die we in onze broekzak meedragen. Maar de vraag is kunnen we het allemaal wel bijhouden al die technologische innovaties? Advances in modern technology are occurring at a lightning speed. Yet the emergence of new capabilities and disruptive technologies could well be creating a landscape of tech-fatigue. It\u2019s not simply consumers who are suffering from this tidal wave of technological innovation. Technology is already a core part of the modern workplace fr , Hierin verkenden we de impact van technologie op de werkplek van de nabije toekomst. Uit ons resultaat blijkt overduidelijk dat de snelheid van de transformatie tot vragen leidt die lastig te beantwoorden zijn. Ons onderzoek toont aan dat er een opzienbarende kloof bestaat in het bewustzijn van belangrijke technologieën onder Europese werknemers. Slechts 60 procent van respondenten had wel eens gehoord van wearable technologieën wat betekent dat 4 van de 10 Europese werknemers nog nooit had gehoord van een fundamentele technologie waarvan wordt voorspeld dat deze een grote impact zal hebben op de werkplek van de toekomst.Deze uitdaging wordt verder benadrukt als we kijken naar andere belangrijke technologieën waarbij het bewustzijn aanzienlijk lager was dan dat van wearables. Slechts 37 procent van de Europese werknemers is op de hoogte van technologieën als bio-printing of cobotics (samenwerkende robots). Respondenten legden ook een gebrek aan bewustzijn a
Hierin verkenden ["Q-054 Who de impact van technologie op de werkplek van de nabije toekomst ?"] "
Technologisch bewustzijn in Europa weten we wel voldoende van de technologie die onze toekomst zal vormgeven? De vooruitgang in moderne technologie vindt met zeer grote vaart plaats. Maar de opkomst van nieuwe mogelijkheden en technologieën zou ook heel goed kunnen leiden tot een soort technologie-moeheid. Het zijn niet alleen consumenten die te lijden hebben onder deze stortvloed aan technologische innovatie. Technologie vormt al een kernonderdeel van de moderne werkplek van geavanceerde printers tot de supercomputers die we in onze broekzak meedragen. Maar de vraag is kunnen we het allemaal wel bijhouden al die technologische innovaties? Advances in modern technology are occurring at a lightning speed. Yet the emergence of new capabilities and disruptive technologies could well be creating a landscape of tech-fatigue. It\u2019s not simply consumers who are suffering from this tidal wave of technological innovation. Technology is already a core part of the modern workplace fr , Uit ons resultaat blijkt overduidelijk dat de snelheid van de transformatie tot vragen leidt die lastig te beantwoorden zijn. Ons onderzoek toont aan dat er een opzienbarende kloof bestaat in het bewustzijn van belangrijke technologieën onder Europese werknemers. Slechts 60 procent van respondenten had wel eens gehoord van wearable technologieën wat betekent dat 4 van de 10 Europese werknemers nog nooit had gehoord van een fundamentele technologie waarvan wordt voorspeld dat deze een grote impact zal hebben op de werkplek van de toekomst.Deze uitdaging wordt verder benadrukt als we kijken naar andere belangrijke technologieën waarbij het bewustzijn aanzienlijk lager was dan dat van wearables. Slechts 37 procent van de Europese werknemers is op de hoogte van technologieën als bio-printing of cobotics (samenwerkende robots). Respondenten legden ook een gebrek aan bewustzijn aan de dag van algemene technologische trends. Slechts 51 procent gaf aan de term '
Uit ["Q-057 Who resultaat blijkt overduidelijk dat de snelheid van de transformatie tot vragen leidt die lastig te beantwoorden zijn ?"] "
39;blended learning' te begrijpen (waarbij een combinatie van online en offline hulpmiddelen worden gebruikt voor educatieve doeleinden) en slechts 35 procent verklaarde iets te weten van omni-channel retail (een aanpak van verkoop met meerdere kanalen waarbij een consistente online en offline ervaring wordt geboden).Een groeiend bewustzijn leidt tot een positieve houdingHet gebrek aan bewustzijn leidt tot problemen bij de adoptie van nieuwe technologie maar kunnen we de interesse verhogen door kennis te vergroten? Als onderdeel van het onderzoek gaven we een toelichting op verschillende nieuwe technologieën aan Europese werknemers. Het bleek dat een groter inzicht leidt tot een veel positievere mening. Over de potentiële integratie van de verschillende technologieën op de werkplek werd met meer kennis dan ook veel optimistischer gedacht. Voor wearables bestond een zeer positieve feedback waarbij 65 procent van werknemers deze technologie aantrekkelijk vond. , het bewustzijn van belangrijke technologieën onder Europese werknemers. Slechts 60 procent van respondenten had wel eens gehoord van wearable technologieën wat betekent dat 4 van de 10 Europese werknemers nog nooit had gehoord van een fundamentele technologie waarvan wordt voorspeld dat deze een grote impact zal hebben op de werkplek van de toekomst.Deze uitdaging wordt verder benadrukt als we kijken naar andere belangrijke technologieën waarbij het bewustzijn aanzienlijk lager was dan dat van wearables. Slechts 37 procent van de Europese werknemers is op de hoogte van technologieën als bio-printing of cobotics (samenwerkende robots). Respondenten legden ook een gebrek aan bewustzijn aan de dag van algemene technologische trends. Slechts 51 procent gaf aan de term 'blended learning' te begrijpen (waarbij een combinatie van online en offline hulpmiddelen worden gebruikt voor educatieve doeleinden) en slechts 35 procent verklaarde iets te weten van om
Slechts 60 procent van respondenten had wel eens gehoord van wearable technologieën wat betekent dat 4 van de 10 Europese werknemers nog nooit had gehoord van een fundamentele technologie waarvan wordt voorspeld dat deze een grote impact zal hebben op de werkplek van de toekomst.Deze uitdaging wordt verder benadrukt als we kijken naar andere belangrijke technologieën waarbij het bewustzijn aanzienlijk lager was dan dat van wearables. Slechts 37 procent van de Europese werknemers is op de hoogte van technologieën als bio-printing of cobotics (samenwerkende robots). Respondenten legden ook een gebrek aan bewustzijn aan de dag van algemene technologische trends. Slechts 51 procent gaf aan de term 'blended learning' te begrijpen (waarbij een combinatie van online en offline hulpmiddelen worden gebruikt voor educatieve doeleinden) en slechts 35 procent verklaarde iets te weten van omni-channel retail (een aanpak van verkoop met meerdere kanalen waarbij een co , om de kloof in het bewustzijn te overbruggen en één die ook door werknemers wordt verwelkomd want 68 procent is positief over blended learning 65 procent over onderwijs via samenwerking en 66 proces geeft aan positief te staan tegenover meta-leren. Het streven naar het implementeren van de voordelen van technologie " ["Q-061 Who toont aan dat er een opzienbarende kloof bestaat in het bewustzijn van belangrijke technologie & euml ; n onder europese werknemers ?"] "
Technologisch bewustzijn in Europa weten we wel voldoende van de technologie die onze toekomst zal vormgeven? De vooruitgang in moderne technologie vindt met zeer grote vaart plaats. Maar de opkomst van nieuwe mogelijkheden en technologieën zou ook heel goed kunnen leiden tot een soort technologie-moeheid. Het zijn niet alleen consumenten die te lijden hebben onder deze stortvloed aan technologische innovatie. Technologie vormt al een kernonderdeel van de moderne werkplek van geavanceerde printers tot de supercomputers die we in onze broekzak meedragen. Maar de vraag is kunnen we het allemaal wel bijhouden al die technologische innovaties? Advances in modern technology are occurring at a lightning speed. Yet the emergence of new capabilities and disruptive technologies could well be creating a landscape of tech-fatigue. It\u2019s not simply consumers who are suffering from this tidal wave of technological innovation. Technology is already a core part of the modern workplace fr , Slechts 60 procent van respondenten had wel eens gehoord van wearable technologieën wat betekent dat 4 van de 10 Europese werknemers nog nooit had gehoord van een fundamentele technologie waarvan wordt voorspeld dat deze een grote impact zal hebben op de werkplek van de toekomst.Deze uitdaging wordt verder benadrukt als we kijken naar andere belangrijke technologieën waarbij het bewustzijn aanzienlijk lager was dan dat van wearables. Slechts 37 procent van de Europese werknemers is op de hoogte van technologieën als bio-printing of cobotics (samenwerkende robots). Respondenten legden ook een gebrek aan bewustzijn aan de dag van algemene technologische trends. Slechts 51 procent gaf aan de term 'blended learning' te begrijpen (waarbij een combinatie van online en offline hulpmiddelen worden gebruikt voor educatieve doeleinden) en slechts 35 procent verklaarde iets te weten van omni-channel retail (een aanpak van verkoop met meerdere kanalen waarbij een co
Slechts 60 procent van respondenten had wel eens gehoord van wearable technologieën wat betekent dat 4 van de 10 Europese werknemers nog nooit had gehoord van een fundamentele technologie waarvan wordt voorspeld dat deze een grote impact zal hebben op de werkplek van de toekomst.Deze uitdaging wordt verder benadrukt als we kijken naar andere belangrijke technologieën waarbij het bewustzijn aanzienlijk lager was dan dat van wearables. Slechts 37 procent van de Europese werknemers is op de hoogte van technologieën als bio-printing of cobotics (samenwerkende robots). Respondenten legden ook een gebrek aan bewustzijn aan de dag van algemene technologische trends. Slechts 51 procent gaf aan de term 'blended learning' te begrijpen (waarbij een combinatie van online en offline hulpmiddelen worden gebruikt voor educatieve doeleinden) en slechts 35 procent verklaarde iets te weten van omni-channel retail (een aanpak van verkoop met meerdere kanalen waarbij een co , Slechts 60 procent van respondenten had wel eens gehoord van wearable technologieën wat betekent dat 4 van de 10 Europese werknemers nog nooit had gehoord van een fundamentele technologie waarvan wordt voorspeld dat deze een grote impact zal hebben op de werkplek van de toekomst.Deze uitdaging wordt verder benadrukt als we kijken naar andere belangrijke technologieën waarbij het bewustzijn aanzienlijk lager was dan dat van wearables. Slechts 37 procent van de Europese werknemers is op de hoogte van technologieën als bio-printing of cobotics (samenwerkende robots). Respondenten legden ook een gebrek aan bewustzijn aan de dag van algemene technologische trends. Slechts 51 procent gaf aan de term 'blended learning' te begrijpen (waarbij een combinatie van online en offline hulpmiddelen worden gebruikt voor educatieve doeleinden) en slechts 35 procent verklaarde iets te weten van omni-channel retail (een aanpak van verkoop met meerdere kanalen waarbij een co
Slechts 60 ["Q-066 Who had gehoord eens gehoord van wearable technologie & euml ; n wat betekent dat 4 van de 10 europese werknemers nog nooit had gehoord van een fundamentele technologie waarvan wordt voorspeld dat deze een grote impact zal hebben op de werkplek van de toekomst ?"] "
Slechts 60 ["Q-067 Who wat betekent dat 4 van de 10 europese werknemers nog nooit had gehoord van een fundamentele technologie waarvan wordt voorspeld dat deze een grote impact zal hebben op de werkplek van de toekomst ?"] "
Slechts 60 ["Q-068 Who had gehoord van een fundamentele technologie waarvan wordt voorspeld dat deze een grote impact zal hebben op de werkplek van de toekomst ?"] "
39;blended learning' ["Q-069 ]
Slechts 60 procent van respondenten had wel eens gehoord van wearable technologieën wat betekent dat 4 van de 10 Europese werknemers nog nooit had gehoord van een fundamentele technologie waarvan wordt voorspeld dat deze een grote impact zal hebben op de werkplek van de toekomst.Deze uitdaging wordt verder benadrukt als we kijken naar andere belangrijke technologieën waarbij het bewustzijn aanzienlijk lager was dan dat van wearables. Slechts 37 procent van de Europese werknemers is op de hoogte van technologieën als bio-printing of cobotics (samenwerkende robots). Respondenten legden ook een gebrek aan bewustzijn aan de dag van algemene technologische trends. Slechts 51 procent gaf aan de term 'blended learning' te begrijpen (waarbij een combinatie van online en offline hulpmiddelen worden gebruikt voor educatieve doeleinden) en slechts 35 procent verklaarde iets te weten van omni-channel retail (een aanpak van verkoop met meerdere kanalen waarbij een co , Deze uitdaging wordt verder benadrukt als we kijken naar andere belangrijke technologieën waarbij " ["Q-071 Deze uitdaging do wordt verder benadrukt als you kijken & euml ; n & nbsp ; waarbij het bewustzijn aanzienlijk lager was dan dat van wearables ?"] "
Slechts 60 ["Q-072 Deze uitdaging wordt verder benadrukt als you kijken naar andere belangrijke technologie & euml ; n & nbsp ; what N was dan dat van wearables ?"] "
dan dat van wearables ["Q-073 Deze uitdaging wordt verder benadrukt als you kijken naar andere belangrijke technologie & euml ; n & nbsp ; waarbij het what did bewustzijn aanzienlijk lager was ?"] "
Deze uitdaging wordt verder benadrukt als ["Q-074 Who kijken naar andere belangrijke technologie & euml ; n & nbsp ; waarbij het bewustzijn aanzienlijk lager was dan dat van wearables ?"] "
het bewustzijn aanzienlijk lager ["Q-075 Who was dan dat van wearables ?"] "
Slechts 51 procent gaf aan de term 'blended ["Q-076 ]
op de hoogte van technologieën als bio-printing of cobotics ["Q-077 Slechts 37 procent van de of what is europese werknemers op de hoogte van technologie & euml ; n als bio - printing ( samenwerkende robots ) ?"] "
Slechts 37 ["Q-078 Who is op de hoogte van technologie & euml ; n als bio - printing of cobotics ( samenwerkende robots ) ?"] "
39;blended learning' ["Q-079 ]
Technologisch bewustzijn in Europa weten we wel voldoende van de technologie die onze toekomst zal vormgeven? De vooruitgang in moderne technologie vindt met zeer grote vaart plaats. Maar de opkomst van nieuwe mogelijkheden en technologieën zou ook heel goed kunnen leiden tot een soort technologie-moeheid. Het zijn niet alleen consumenten die te lijden hebben onder deze stortvloed aan technologische innovatie. Technologie vormt al een kernonderdeel van de moderne werkplek van geavanceerde printers tot de supercomputers die we in onze broekzak meedragen. Maar de vraag is kunnen we het allemaal wel bijhouden al die technologische innovaties? Advances in modern technology are occurring at a lightning speed. Yet the emergence of new capabilities and disruptive technologies could well be creating a landscape of tech-fatigue. It\u2019s not simply consumers who are suffering from this tidal wave of technological innovation. Technology is already a core part of the modern workplace fr , van omni-channel retail " ["Q-081 Slechts 51 procent gaf aan de term & # 39 ; blended learning & # 39 ; te begrijpen ( waarbij e N combinatie van online en offline hulpmiddelen worden gebruikt voor what e e N N N ) en slechts 35 procent verklaarde iets te weten van omni - channel retail ( een aanpak van verkoop met meerdere kanalen waarbij een consistente online en offline ervaring wordt geboden ) ?"] "
van omni-channel ["Q-082 Slechts 51 procent gaf aan de term & # 39 ; blended learning & # 39 ; te begrijpen ( waarbij een combinatie van online en offline hulpmiddelen worden gebruikt voor educatieve doeleinden ) en slechts 35 procent verklaarde iets te weten van omni - channel retail ( what een aanpak van verkoop met een consistente online en offline ervaring wordt geboden ) ?"] "
te begrijpen ["Q-083 Slechts 51 procent gaf aan de term & # 39 ; blended learning & # 39 ; te begrijpen ( waarbij een combinatie van online en offline hulpmiddelen worden gebruikt voor educatieve doeleinden ) en slechts 35 procent verklaarde iets te weten van omni - channel retail ( een aanpak van verkoop met meerdere kanalen waarbij een consistente online en what offline ervaring ervaring ) ?"] "
te begrijpen ["Q-084 Who educatieve doeleinden ) en slechts 35 procent verklaarde iets te weten van omni - channel retail ( een aanpak van verkoop met meerdere kanalen waarbij een consistente online en offline ervaring wordt geboden ) ?"] "
35 ["Q-085 Who te weten van omni - channel retail ( een aanpak van verkoop met meerdere kanalen waarbij een consistente online en offline ervaring wordt geboden ) ?"] "
van omni-channel retail ["Q-086 Who met meerdere kanalen waarbij een consistente online en offline ervaring wordt geboden ) ?"] "
van de technologie ["Q-087 Who ervaring wordt geboden ) ?"] "
Slechts 51 procent gaf aan de term 'blended learning' te begrijpen (waarbij een combinatie van online en offline hulpmiddelen worden gebruikt voor educatieve doeleinden) en slechts 35 ["Q-088 Slechts 51 procent gaf aan de term & # 39 ; blended learning & # 39 ; te begrijpen ( waarbij een combinatie van online en offline hulpmiddelen how much worden gebruikt voor educatieve doeleinden ) e J procent verklaarde iets te weten van omni - channel retail ( een aanpak van verkoop met meerdere kanalen waarbij een consistente online en offline ervaring wordt geboden ) ?"] "
39;blended learning' ["Q-089 ]
van omni-channel retail ["Q-090 Een groeiend bewustzijn leidt tot een positieve houdinghet gebrek aan bewustzijn leidt tot problemen bij de adoptie van & nbsp ; nieuwe technologie maar kunnen you de interesse verhogen door kennis te vergroten ? Als onderdeel van het onderzoek gaven aan what een you toelichting op verschillende nieuwe technologie & euml ; n ?"] "
35 procent verklaarde iets te weten van omni-channel retail ["Q-091 Een what g g N N N een positieve houdinghet gebrek aan bewustzijn leidt tot problemen bij de adoptie van & nbsp ; nieuwe technologie maar kunnen you de interesse verhogen door kennis te vergroten ? Als onderdeel van het onderzoek gaven you een toelichting op verschillende nieuwe technologie & euml ; n aan europese werknemers ?"] "
Slechts 60 procent van respondenten had wel eens gehoord van wearable technologieën wat betekent dat 4 van de 10 Europese werknemers nog nooit had gehoord van een fundamentele technologie waarvan wordt voorspeld dat deze een grote impact zal hebben op de werkplek van de toekomst.Deze uitdaging wordt verder benadrukt als we kijken naar andere belangrijke technologieën waarbij het bewustzijn aanzienlijk lager was dan dat van wearables. Slechts 37 procent van de Europese werknemers is op de hoogte van technologieën als bio-printing of cobotics (samenwerkende robots). Respondenten legden ook een gebrek aan bewustzijn aan de dag van algemene technologische trends. Slechts 51 procent gaf aan de term 'blended learning' te begrijpen (waarbij een combinatie van online en offline hulpmiddelen worden gebruikt voor educatieve doeleinden) en slechts 35 procent verklaarde iets te weten van omni-channel retail ["Q-092 Een groeiend bew
van omni-channel retail ["Q-093 Een groeiend bewustzijn leidt t N een positieve houdinghet gebrek aan bewustzijn leidt tot problemen bij de adoptie van & nbsp ; what N de interesse verhogen door kennis te vergroten ? Als onderdeel van het onderzoek gaven you een toelichting op verschillende nieuwe technologie & euml ; n aan europese werknemers ?"] "
Maar de opkomst van nieuwe mogelijkheden en technologieën zou ook heel goed kunnen leiden tot een soort technologie-moeheid. Het zijn niet alleen consumenten die te lijden hebben onder deze stortvloed aan technologische innovatie. Technologie vormt al een kernonderdeel van de moderne werkplek van geavanceerde printers tot de supercomputers die we in onze broekzak meedragen. Maar de vraag is kunnen we het allemaal wel bijhouden al die technologische innovaties? Advances in modern technology are occurring at a lightning speed. Yet the emergence of new capabilities and disruptive technologies could well be creating a landscape of tech-fatigue. It\u2019s not simply consumers who are suffering from this tidal wave of technological innovation. Technology is already a core part of the modern workplace from state-of-the-art printers to the super computers we carry in our pockets. With the emergence of so much technological innovation is awareness keeping pace?Inzicht in het bewustzijn , Slechts 60 procent van respondenten had wel eens gehoord van wearable technologieën wat betekent dat 4 van de 10 Europese werknemers nog nooit had gehoord van een fundamentele technologie waarvan wordt voorspeld dat deze een grote impact zal hebben op de werkplek van de toekomst.Deze uitdaging wordt verder benadrukt als we kijken naar andere belangrijke technologieën waarbij het bewustzijn aanzienlijk lager was dan dat van wearables. Slechts 37 procent van de Europese werknemers is op de hoogte van technologieën als bio-printing of cobotics (samenwerkende robots). Respondenten legden ook een gebrek aan bewustzijn aan de dag van algemene technologische trends. Slechts 51 procent gaf aan de term 'blended learning' te begrijpen (waarbij een combinatie van online en offline hulpmiddelen worden gebruikt voor educatieve doeleinden) en slechts 35 procent verklaarde iets te weten van omni-channel retail " ["Q-095 Een groeiend bew
van omni-channel retail ["Q-096 Een groeiend bewustzijn leidt tot e J positieve houdinghet gebrek aan bewustzijn leidt tot problemen bij de adoptie van & nbsp ; nieuwe technologie maar kunnen you de interesse verhogen door kennis te vergroten ? Als onderdeel van het onderzoek gaven what you e J & euml ; n aan europese werknemers ?"] "
van omni-channel retail ["Q-097 Who technologie maar kunnen you de interesse verhogen door kennis te vergroten ? Als onderdeel van het onderzoek gaven you een toelichting op verschillende nieuwe technologie & euml ; n aan europese werknemers ?"] "
bij de adoptie van nieuwe technologie maar kunnen we de interesse verhogen door kennis te vergroten? Als onderdeel van het onderzoek gaven we een toelichting op verschillende nieuwe technologieën aan Europese werknemers. Het bleek dat een groter inzicht leidt tot een veel positievere mening. Over de potentiële integratie van de verschillende technologieën op de werkplek werd met meer kennis dan ook veel optimistischer gedacht. Voor wearables bestond een zeer positieve feedback waarbij 65 procent van werknemers deze technologie aantrekkelijk vond. Organisch afdrukken en bio-printing & cobotics werden door respectievelijk 58 procent en 57 procent van ondervraagden verwelkomd. Van alle technologieën die werden genoemd was het echter 3D-printing dat de grootste interesse wekte onder werknemers want 66 procent gaf aan hiervan positieve verwachtingen te hebben. Gezien het diepgaande effect dat 3D-printing naar verwachting zal hebben op de industrie als , Als onderdeel van het onderzoek " ["Q-099 Who een toelichting op verschillende nieuwe technologie & euml ; n aan europese werknemers ?"] "
Technologisch bewustzijn in Europa weten we wel voldoende van de technologie die onze toekomst zal vormgeven? De vooruitgang in moderne technologie vindt met zeer grote vaart plaats. Maar de opkomst van nieuwe mogelijkheden en technologieën zou ook heel goed kunnen leiden tot een soort technologie-moeheid. Het zijn niet alleen consumenten die te lijden hebben onder deze stortvloed aan technologische innovatie. Technologie vormt al een kernonderdeel van de moderne werkplek van geavanceerde printers tot de supercomputers die we in onze broekzak meedragen. Maar de vraag is kunnen we het allemaal wel bijhouden al die technologische innovaties? Advances in modern technology are occurring at a lightning speed. Yet the emergence of new capabilities and disruptive technologies could well be creating a landscape of tech-fatigue. It\u2019s not simply consumers who are suffering from this tidal wave of technological innovation. Technology is already a core part of the modern workplace fr , van de technologie " ["Q-0101 Who positievere mening ?"] "
Technologisch bewustzijn in Europa weten we wel voldoende van de technologie die onze toekomst zal vormgeven? De vooruitgang in moderne technologie vindt met zeer grote vaart plaats. Maar de opkomst van nieuwe mogelijkheden en technologieën zou ook heel goed kunnen leiden tot een soort technologie-moeheid. Het zijn niet alleen consumenten die te lijden hebben onder deze stortvloed aan technologische innovatie. Technologie vormt al een kernonderdeel van de moderne werkplek van geavanceerde printers tot de supercomputers die we in onze broekzak meedragen. Maar de vraag is kunnen we het allemaal wel bijhouden al die technologische innovaties? Advances in modern technology are occurring at a lightning speed. Yet the emergence of new capabilities and disruptive technologies could well be creating a landscape of tech-fatigue. It\u2019s not simply consumers who are suffering from this tidal wave of technological innovation. Technology is already a core part of the modern workplace fr , 39;blended " ["Q-0103 ]
Voor wearables bestond een zeer positieve feedback waarbij 65 procent van werknemers deze technologie aantrekkelijk vond ["Q-0104 Voor what w w N N N een zeer positieve feedback waarbij 65 procent van werknemers deze technologie aantrekkelijk vond ?"] "
van omni-channel retail ["Q-0105 What bestond een zeer positieve deze technologie aantrekkelijk vond ?"] "
van technologie ["Q-0106 Voor wearables bestond een zeer positieve feedback waarbij 65 what procent van werknemers d N ?"] "
van de technologie ["Q-0107 Who deze technologie aantrekkelijk vond ?"] "
39;blended learning' ["Q-0108 ]
58 ["Q-0109 Organisch afdrukken en bio - printing & nbsp ; & cobotics werden door what r r N N N en 57 procent van ondervraagden verwelkomd ?"] "
58 ["Q-0110 Organisch afdrukken en bio - printing & nbsp ; & cobotics werden door how much r r N N N procent en 57 procent van ondervraagden verwelkomd ?"] "
Slechts 51 procent gaf aan de term 'blended ["Q-0111 ]
om de kloof ["Q-0112 Van alle technologie & euml ; n die de what did werden genoemd was het echter 3d - printing dat want 66 procent gaf aan hiervan positieve verwachtingen te hebben ?"] "
Gezien het diepgaande effect dat 3D-printing naar verwachting zal hebben op de industrie als geheel en met name in de productie- en retailsector vormt het een aanzienlijke geruststelling dat werknemers openstonden voor de mogelijke impact van de technologie wanneer ze zich beter bewust waren van de kenmerken en mogelijkheden.Streef ernaar het bewustzijn te verhogenTechnologische vooruitgang in het onderwijs biedt een andere mogelijkheid om de kloof ["Q-0113 Van alle technologie & euml ; what J was het echter 3d - printing dat de grootste interesse wekte onder werknemers want 66 procent gaf aan hiervan positieve verwachtingen te hebben ?"] "
58 procent en 57 procent van ondervraagden verwelkomd. Van alle technologieën die werden genoemd was het echter ["Q-0114 Van alle technologie & euml ; n die werden genoemd was het echter what 3d - printing dat de grootste interesse wekte onder werknemers w J positieve verwachtingen te hebben ?"] "
en 57 ["Q-0115 Van alle technologie & euml ; n die werden genoemd was het echter 3d - printing dat de grootste interesse wekte onder werknemers want 66 p N gaf aan hiervan what p p N N N ?"] "
Van alle technologieën die werden genoemd was het echter 3D-printing dat de grootste interesse wekte onder werknemers want 66 procent gaf aan hiervan positieve verwachtingen te hebben. Gezien het diepgaande effect dat 3D-printing naar verwachting zal hebben op de industrie als geheel en met name in de productie- en retailsector vormt het een aanzienlijke geruststelling dat werknemers openstonden voor de mogelijke impact van de technologie wanneer ze zich beter bewust waren van de kenmerken en mogelijkheden.Streef ernaar het bewustzijn te verhogenTechnologische vooruitgang in het onderwijs biedt een andere mogelijkheid om de kloof in het bewustzijn te overbruggen en één die ook door werknemers wordt verwelkomd want 68 procent is positief over blended learning 65 procent over onderwijs via samenwerking en 66 proces geeft aan positief te staan tegenover meta-leren. Het streven naar het implementeren van de voordelen van technologie ["Q-0116
Van alle technologieën die werden genoemd was het echter ["Q-0117 Who want 66 procent gaf aan hiervan positieve verwachtingen te hebben ?"] "
66 ["Q-0118 Van alle technologie & euml ; n die werden genoemd was het echter how much 3d - printing dat de grootste interesse wekte onder werknemers want procent gaf aan hiervan positieve verwachtingen te hebben ?"] "
39;blended ["Q-0119 ]
Gezien ["Q-0120 De what 3d - printing naar verwachting zal hebben & nbsp ; op geheel en met name in de productie- en retailsector vormt het een aanzienlijke geruststelling dat werknemers openstonden voor de mogelijke impact van de technologie wanneer ze Zich beter bewust waren van de kenmerken en mogelijkheden ?"] "
Gezien ["Q-0121 Gezien het diepgaande effect dat 3d - printing naar verwachting zal hebben & nbsp ; op de en what industrie als geheel in de productie- en retailsector vormt het een aanzienlijke geruststelling dat werknemers openstonden voor de mogelijke impact van de technologie wanneer ze Zich beter bewust waren van de kenmerken en mogelijkheden ?"] "
Gezien ["Q-0122 Gezien het diepgaande effect dat 3d - printing naar verwachting zal hebben & nbsp ; op de what industrie als geheel en met in de productie- en retailsector vormt het een aanzienlijke geruststelling dat werknemers openstonden voor de mogelijke impact van de technologie wanneer ze Zich beter bewust waren van de kenmerken en mogelijkheden ?"] "
Gezien ["Q-0123 Gezien het diepgaande effect dat 3d - printing naar verwachting zal hebben & nbsp ; op de industrie als geheel what en met name in de productie- en retailsector vormt het een aanzienlijke geruststelling openstonden voor de mogelijke impact van de technologie wanneer ze Zich beter bewust waren van de kenmerken en mogelijkheden ?"] "
Gezien ["Q-0124 Who geheel en met name in de productie- en retailsector vormt het een aanzienlijke geruststelling dat werknemers openstonden voor de mogelijke impact van de technologie wanneer ze Zich beter bewust waren van de kenmerken en mogelijkheden ?"] "
Gezien het diepgaande ["Q-0125 Who met name in de productie- en retailsector vormt het een aanzienlijke geruststelling dat werknemers openstonden voor de mogelijke impact van de technologie wanneer ze Zich beter bewust waren van de kenmerken en mogelijkheden ?"] "
Technologisch bewustzijn in Europa weten we wel voldoende van de technologie die onze toekomst zal vormgeven? De vooruitgang in moderne technologie vindt met zeer grote vaart plaats. Maar de opkomst van nieuwe mogelijkheden en technologieën zou ook heel goed kunnen leiden tot een soort technologie-moeheid. Het zijn niet alleen consumenten die te lijden hebben onder deze stortvloed aan technologische innovatie. Technologie vormt al een kernonderdeel van de moderne werkplek van geavanceerde printers tot de supercomputers die we in onze broekzak meedragen. Maar de vraag is kunnen we het allemaal wel bijhouden al die technologische innovaties? Advances in modern technology are occurring at a lightning speed. Yet the emergence of new capabilities and disruptive technologies could well be creating a landscape of tech-fatigue. It\u2019s not simply consumers who are suffering from this tidal wave of technological innovation. Technology is already a core part of the modern workplace fr , samenwerking " ["Q-0127 Streef ernaar het bewustzijn te verhogentechnologische vooruitgang in het onderwijs biedt een andere mogelijkheid om de kloof in het bewustzijn te overbruggen en & eacute ; & eacute ; n die ook door werknemers wordt verwelkomd want 68 procent is via what did positief over blended 65 procent over onderwijs en 66 proces geeft aan positief te staan tegenover meta - leren ?"] "
Streef ernaar het bewustzijn te verhogenTechnologische vooruitgang in het onderwijs biedt een andere mogelijkheid om de kloof in het bewustzijn te overbruggen en één die ook door werknemers wordt verwelkomd ["Q-0128 Streef ernaar het bewustzijn te verhogentechnologische vooruitgang in het onderwijs biedt een andere mogelijkheid om de kloof in het bewustzijn te overbruggen en & eacute ; & eacute ; n die ook door werknemers wordt verwelkomd want 68 procent is positief over blended learning 65 procent over onderwijs via samenwerking en 66 proces geeft aan positief te staan ?"] "
Streef ernaar het bewustzijn te verhogenTechnologische vooruitgang in het onderwijs biedt een andere mogelijkheid om de kloof in het bewustzijn te overbruggen en één die ["Q-0129 Streef ernaar het bewustzijn te verhogentechnologische vooruitgang in het onderwijs biedt een andere mogelijkheid om de kloof in het bewustzijn te overbruggen en & eacute ; & eacute ; what J wordt verwelkomd want 68 procent is positief over blended learning 65 procent over onderwijs via samenwerking en 66 proces geeft aan positief te staan tegenover meta - leren ?"] "
ook ["Q-0130 Streef ernaar het bewustzijn te verhogentechnologische vooruitgang in het onderwijs biedt een andere mogelijkheid om de kloof in het bewustzijn te overbruggen en & eacute ; & eacute ; n die what ook door werknemers w N want 68 procent is positief over blended learning 65 procent over onderwijs via samenwerking en 66 proces geeft aan positief te staan tegenover meta - leren ?"] "
ook ["Q-0131 Streef ernaar het bewustzijn te verhogentechnologische vooruitgang in het onderwijs biedt een andere mogelijkheid om de kloof in het bewustzijn te overbruggen en & eacute ; & eacute ; n die what ook door werknemers wordt verwelkomd w J is positief over blended learning 65 procent over onderwijs via samenwerking en 66 proces geeft aan positief te staan tegenover meta - leren ?"] "
Streef ernaar het bewustzijn te verhogenTechnologische vooruitgang in het onderwijs biedt een andere mogelijkheid om de kloof in het bewustzijn te overbruggen en één die ook door werknemers wordt verwelkomd ["Q-0132 Streef ernaar het bewustzijn te verhogentechnologische vooruitgang in het onderwijs biedt een andere mogelijkheid om de kloof in het bewustzijn te overbruggen en & eacute ; & eacute ; n die ook door werknemers wordt verwelkomd want 68 what is procent positief over blended learning over onderwijs via samenwerking en 66 proces geeft aan positief te staan tegenover meta - leren ?"] "
onderwijs ["Q-0133 Streef ernaar het bewustzijn te verhogentechnologische vooruitgang in het onderwijs biedt een andere mogelijkheid om de kloof in het bewustzijn te overbruggen en & eacute ; & eacute ; n die ook door werknemers wordt verwelkomd want 68 procent is positief over blended learning 65 procent over what onderwijs via samenwerking samenwerking en 66 proces g N tegenover meta - leren ?"] "
een ["Q-0134 Who wordt verwelkomd want 68 procent is positief over blended learning 65 procent over onderwijs via samenwerking en 66 proces geeft aan positief te staan tegenover meta - leren ?"] "
Streef ernaar het bewustzijn te verhogenTechnologische vooruitgang in het onderwijs biedt een andere mogelijkheid om de kloof ["Q-0135 Who want 68 procent is positief over blended learning 65 procent over onderwijs via samenwerking en 66 proces geeft aan positief te staan tegenover meta - leren ?"] "
een ["Q-0136 Who is positief over blended learning 65 procent over onderwijs via samenwerking en 66 proces geeft aan positief te staan tegenover meta - leren ?"] "
Streef ernaar het bewustzijn te verhogenTechnologische vooruitgang in het onderwijs biedt een andere mogelijkheid om de kloof ["Q-0137 Who blended bewustzijn 65 procent over onderwijs via samenwerking en 66 proces geeft aan positief te staan tegenover meta - leren ?"] "
Streef ernaar ["Q-0138 Who samenwerking en 66 proces geeft aan positief te staan tegenover meta - leren ?"] "
een andere mogelijkheid om de kloof ["Q-0139 Who geeft aan positief te staan tegenover meta - leren ?"] "
39;blended ["Q-0140 ]
Streef ernaar het bewustzijn te verhogenTechnologische vooruitgang in het onderwijs biedt een andere mogelijkheid om de kloof in het bewustzijn te overbruggen en één die ook door werknemers wordt verwelkomd want 68 procent is positief over blended learning 65 procent over onderwijs via samenwerking en 66 proces geeft aan positief te staan tegenover meta-leren. Het streven naar het implementeren van de voordelen van technologie in de industrie als geheel is belangrijk maar we moeten even hard werken aan het optimaliseren van de geboden mogelijkheden. Hier spelen organisaties een cruciale rol. Momenteel is slechts 14 procent van werknemers van mening dat hun organisatie het 'uitstekend' ["Q-0141 What Het streven n J de voordelen van technologie in de industrie als geheel is belangrijk maar you moeten even hard werken aan het optimaliseren van de geboden"
Streef ernaar het bewustzijn te verhogenTechnologische vooruitgang in het onderwijs biedt een andere mogelijkheid om de kloof in het bewustzijn te overbruggen en één die ook door werknemers wordt verwelkomd want 68 procent is positief over blended learning 65 procent over onderwijs via samenwerking en 66 proces geeft aan positief te staan tegenover meta-leren. Het streven naar het implementeren van de voordelen van technologie in de industrie als geheel is belangrijk maar we moeten even hard werken aan het optimaliseren van de geboden mogelijkheden. Hier spelen organisaties een cruciale rol. Momenteel is slechts 14 procent van werknemers van mening dat hun organisatie het 'uitstekend' ["Q-0142 Het streven naar het implementeren van de voordelen van technologie in de industrie what als g N moeten even hard werken aan het optimaliseren van de geboden moge
ze ["Q-0143 Het streven naar het implementeren van de voordelen van technologie in de industrie als geheel is what belangrijk maar you m r optimaliseren van de geboden mogelijkheden ?"] "
ze ["Q-0144 Who streven naar het implementeren van de voordelen van technologie in de industrie als geheel is belangrijk maar you moeten even hard werken aan het optimaliseren van de geboden mogelijkheden ?"] "
van technologie in de industrie als geheel ["Q-0145 Who is belangrijk maar you moeten even hard werken aan het optimaliseren van de geboden mogelijkheden ?"] "
van technologie ["Q-0146 Who moeten even hard werken aan het optimaliseren van de geboden mogelijkheden ?"] "
39;blended ["Q-0147 ]
van de technologie die onze toekomst zal vormgeven? De vooruitgang in moderne technologie vindt met zeer grote vaart plaats. Maar de opkomst van nieuwe mogelijkheden en technologieën zou ook heel goed kunnen leiden tot een soort technologie-moeheid. Het zijn niet alleen consumenten die te lijden hebben onder deze stortvloed aan technologische innovatie. Technologie vormt al een kernonderdeel van de moderne werkplek van geavanceerde printers tot de supercomputers die we in onze broekzak meedragen. Maar de vraag is kunnen we het allemaal wel bijhouden al die technologische innovaties? Advances in modern technology are occurring at a lightning speed. Yet the emergence of new capabilities and disruptive technologies could well be creating a landscape of tech-fatigue. It\u2019s not simply consumers who are suffering from this tidal wave of technological innovation. Technology is already a core part of the modern workplace from state-of-the-art printers to the super computers we car , van de technologie " ["Q-0149 Who een cruciale rol ?"] "
Technologisch bewustzijn in Europa weten we wel voldoende van de technologie die onze toekomst zal vormgeven? De vooruitgang in moderne technologie vindt met zeer grote vaart plaats. Maar de opkomst van nieuwe mogelijkheden en technologieën zou ook heel goed kunnen leiden tot een soort technologie-moeheid. Het zijn niet alleen consumenten die te lijden hebben onder deze stortvloed aan technologische innovatie. Technologie vormt al een kernonderdeel van de moderne werkplek van geavanceerde printers tot de supercomputers die we in onze broekzak meedragen. Maar de vraag is kunnen we het allemaal wel bijhouden al die technologische innovaties? Advances in modern technology are occurring at a lightning speed. Yet the emergence of new capabilities and disruptive technologies could well be creating a landscape of tech-fatigue. It\u2019s not simply consumers who are suffering from this tidal wave of technological innovation. Technology is already a core part of the modern workplace fr , Momenteel is slechts 14 procent van werknemers van mening dat hun organisatie het 'uitstekend' " ["Q-0151 Momenteel is slechts 14 organisatie what van procent van werknemers mening dat hun & # 39 ; uitstekend & # 39 ; doet op het gebied van het bijhouden van de nieuwste technologische ontwikkelingen ?"] "
Momenteel is slechts 14 procent van werknemers van mening dat hun organisatie het 'uitstekend' ["Q-0152 Momenteel is slechts 14 op what van procent van werknemers mening dat hun organisatie het & # 39 ; uitstekend & # 39 ; doet van het bijhouden van de nieuwste technologische ontwikkelingen ?"] "
Momenteel ["Q-0153 What is Momenteel procent van werknemers van mening dat hun organisatie het & # 39 ; uitstekend & # 39 ; doet op het gebied van het bijhouden van de nieuwste technologische ontwikkelingen ?"] "
dat hun ["Q-0154 Momenteel is slechts 14 what procent van werknemers v N Organisatie Het & # 39 ; uitstekend & # 39 ; doet op het gebied van het bijhouden van de nieuwste technologische ontwikkelingen ?"] "
39;uitstekend' ["Q-0155 Momenteel is slechts 14 procent van werknemers van mening dat hun organisatie het & # 39 ; uitstekend & # 39 ; what op doet het gebied bijhouden van de nieuwste technologische ontwikkelingen ?"] "
Momenteel ["Q-0156 Who is slechts 14 procent van werknemers van mening dat hun organisatie het & # 39 ; uitstekend & # 39 ; doet op het gebied van het bijhouden van de nieuwste technologische ontwikkelingen ?"] "
Momenteel ["Q-0157 Who van mening dat hun organisatie het & # 39 ; uitstekend & # 39 ; doet op het gebied van het bijhouden van de nieuwste technologische ontwikkelingen ?"] "
doet ["Q-0158 Who op het gebied van het bijhouden van de nieuwste technologische ontwikkelingen ?"] "
39;blended ["Q-0159 ]
van technologie ["Q-0160 Als organisaties niet streven naar dieper inzicht in deze veranderende technologische context is het nauwelijks voor te stellen via what dat werknemers deze veranderingen kunnen bijbenen ?"] "
van technologie ["Q-0161 Als organisaties niet streven naar what is dieper inzicht in deze veranderende technologische context dat werknemers deze veranderingen via grotere kennis kunnen bijbenen ?"] "
van technologie ["Q-0162 Als organisaties niet streven naar dieper inzicht in deze veranderende technologische context is het nauwelijks voor te stellen what dat werknemers d N via grotere kennis kunnen bijbenen ?"] "
van technologie ["Q-0163 Als organisaties niet streven naar dieper inzicht in deze veranderende technologische context is het nauwelijks voor te stellen dat werknemers deze veranderingen via what N ?"] "
Als organisaties niet streven naar dieper inzicht in deze veranderende technologische context ["Q-0164 Who is het nauwelijks voor te stellen dat werknemers deze veranderingen via grotere kennis kunnen bijbenen ?"] "
van de technologie ["Q-0165 Who deze veranderingen via grotere kennis kunnen bijbenen ?"] "
van de technologie ["Q-0166 Who grotere kennis organisaties bijbenen ?"] "
Slechts 51 procent gaf aan de term 'blended ["Q-0167 ]
een ["Q-0168 Uiteindelijk leidt via what technologie als alleenstaand fenomeen niet tot succes dit wordt behaald de geboden mogelijkheden ?"] "
Uiteindelijk leidt technologie als ["Q-0169 Uiteindelijk what l l N N N alleenstaand fenomeen niet tot succes dit wordt behaald via een geslaagde implementatie van de geboden mogelijkheden ?"] "
als alleenstaand ["Q-0170 Uiteindelijk leidt technologie what a N via een geslaagde implementatie van de geboden mogelijkheden ?"] "
Uiteindelijk leidt technologie als ["Q-0171 Who alleenstaand fenomeen niet tot succes dit wordt behaald via een geslaagde implementatie van de geboden mogelijkheden ?"] "
39;blended ["Q-0172 ]
Gezien het diepgaande effect dat 3D-printing naar verwachting zal hebben op de industrie als geheel en met name in de productie- en retailsector vormt het een aanzienlijke geruststelling dat werknemers openstonden voor de mogelijke impact van de technologie wanneer ze zich beter bewust waren van de kenmerken en mogelijkheden.Streef ernaar het bewustzijn te verhogenTechnologische vooruitgang in het onderwijs biedt een andere mogelijkheid om de kloof in het bewustzijn te overbruggen en één die ook door werknemers wordt verwelkomd want 68 procent is positief over blended learning 65 procent over onderwijs via samenwerking en 66 proces geeft aan positief te staan tegenover meta-leren. Het streven naar het implementeren van de voordelen van technologie in de industrie als geheel is belangrijk maar we moeten even hard werken aan het optimaliseren van de geboden mogelijkheden. Hier spelen organisaties een cruciale rol. Momenteel is slechts 14 procent van werknemers van , Als we ooit willen profiteren van een revolutie " ["Q-0174 Als you ooit what N in De technologie voor de werkplek moeten you als eerste stap het bewustzijn erover in de industrie als geheel verhogen ?"] "
het bewustzijn erover ["Q-0175 Als you ooit willen profiteren van een revolutie in de technologie voor de werkplek moeten what you als e N in De industrie als geheel verhogen ?"] "
Streef ernaar het bewustzijn te verhogenTechnologische vooruitgang in het onderwijs biedt een andere mogelijkheid om de kloof in het bewustzijn te overbruggen en één die ook door werknemers wordt verwelkomd want 68 procent is positief over blended learning 65 procent over onderwijs via samenwerking en 66 proces geeft aan positief te staan tegenover meta-leren. Het streven naar het implementeren van de voordelen van technologie in de industrie als geheel is belangrijk maar we moeten even hard werken aan het optimaliseren van de geboden mogelijkheden. Hier spelen organisaties een cruciale rol. Momenteel is slechts 14 procent van werknemers van mening dat hun organisatie het 'uitstekend' ["Q-0176 Als you ooit willen profiteren van een revolutie in de technologie voor de werkplek moeten you als eerste stap het bewustzijn erover in de industrie what als g"
Als ["Q-0177 Who ooit willen profiteren van een revolutie in de technologie voor de werkplek moeten you als eerste stap het bewustzijn erover in de industrie als geheel verhogen ?"] "
van een ["Q-0178 Who eerste stap het bewustzijn erover in de industrie als geheel verhogen ?"] "
van de technologie ["Q-0179 Who geheel verhogen ?"] "
39;blended learning' te begrijpen (waarbij een combinatie van online en offline hulpmiddelen worden gebruikt voor educatieve doeleinden) en slechts 35 procent verklaarde iets te weten van omni-channel retail (een aanpak van verkoop met meerdere kanalen waarbij een consistente online en offline ervaring wordt geboden).Een groeiend bewustzijn leidt tot een positieve houdingHet gebrek aan bewustzijn leidt tot problemen bij de adoptie van nieuwe technologie maar kunnen we de interesse verhogen door kennis te vergroten? Als onderdeel van het onderzoek gaven we een toelichting op verschillende nieuwe technologieën aan Europese werknemers. Het bleek dat een groter inzicht leidt tot een veel positievere mening. Over de potentiële integratie van de verschillende technologieën op de werkplek werd met meer kennis dan ook veel optimistischer gedacht. Voor wearables bestond een zeer positieve feedback waarbij 65 procent van werknemers deze technologie aantrekkelijk vond. , 39;blended learning' te begrijpen (waarbij een combinatie van online en offline hulpmiddelen worden gebruikt voor educatieve doeleinden) en slechts 35 procent verklaarde iets te weten van omni-channel retail (een aanpak van verkoop met meerdere kanalen waarbij een consistente online en offline ervaring wordt geboden).Een groeiend bewustzijn leidt tot een positieve houdingHet gebrek aan bewustzijn leidt tot problemen bij de adoptie van nieuwe technologie maar kunnen we de interesse verhogen door kennis te vergroten? Als onderdeel van het onderzoek gaven we een toelichting op verschillende nieuwe technologieën aan Europese werknemers. Het bleek dat een groter inzicht leidt tot een veel positievere mening. Over de potentiële integratie van de verschillende technologieën op de werkplek werd met meer kennis dan ook veel optimistischer gedacht. Voor wearables bestond een zeer positieve feedback waarbij 65 procent van werknemers deze technologie aantrekkelijk vond.
39;blended learning' te begrijpen (waarbij een combinatie van online en offline hulpmiddelen worden gebruikt voor educatieve doeleinden) en slechts 35 procent verklaarde iets te weten van omni-channel retail (een aanpak van verkoop met meerdere kanalen waarbij een consistente online en offline ervaring wordt geboden).Een groeiend bewustzijn leidt tot een positieve houdingHet gebrek aan bewustzijn leidt tot problemen bij de adoptie van nieuwe technologie maar kunnen we de interesse verhogen door kennis te vergroten? Als onderdeel van het onderzoek gaven we een toelichting op verschillende nieuwe technologieën aan Europese werknemers. Het bleek dat een groter inzicht leidt tot een veel positievere mening. Over de potentiële integratie van de verschillende technologieën op de werkplek werd met meer kennis dan ook veel optimistischer gedacht. Voor wearables bestond een zeer positieve feedback waarbij 65 procent van werknemers deze technologie aantrekkelijk vond. , Europa " ["Q-01 Who wel voldoende van de technologie die onze toekomst zal vormgeven ? De vooruitgang in moderne technologie vindt met zeer grote vaart plaats ?"] "
van de technologie ["Q-02 Who met zeer grote vaart plaats ?"] "
al een ["Q-03 Who tot de supercomputers die you in onze broekzak meedragen ?"] "
al een kernonderdeel van de moderne werkplek van geavanceerde printers tot de supercomputers ["Q-04 Who die you in onze broekzak meedragen ?"] "
Maar de vraag ["Q-05 Who het allemaal wel bijhouden al die technologische innovaties ? advances in modern technology are occurring at a lightning speed ?"] "
Advances in modern technology ["Q-06 Who are occurring at a lightning speed ?"] "
Maar de vraag is kunnen we het allemaal wel bijhouden al die technologische innovaties? Advances in modern technology are occurring at a lightning speed. Yet the emergence of new capabilities and disruptive technologies ["Q-07 Who could well be creating a landscape of tech - fatigue ?"] "
core part ["Q-08 What is Technology of the modern workplace from state - of - the - art printers to the super computers you carry in your pockets ?"] "
Technology ["Q-09 Who is already a core part of the modern workplace from state - of - the - art printers to the super computers you carry in your pockets ?"] "
super computers ["Q-10 Who carry in your pockets ?"] "
technological innovation ["Q-11 Who is awareness keeping pace ? Inzicht in het bewustzijn van technologieepson heeft onlangs onderzoek uitgevoerd waarbij 17 internationale branche - experts en meer dan 7000 europese bedrijfsmanagers en werknemers werden ondervraagd ?"] "
het bewustzijn van technologieEpson ["Q-12 Who onderzoek emergence waarbij 17 internationale branche - experts en meer dan 7000 europese bedrijfsmanagers en werknemers werden ondervraagd ?"] "
het een ["Q-13 Who en werknemers werden ondervraagd ?"] "
van de technologie ["Q-14 Who werden ondervraagd ?"] "
van technologie in de industrie als geheel ["Q-15 What Hierin verkenden you d you op de werkplek van de nabije toekomst ?"] "
Hierin verkenden ["Q-16 Who de impact van technologie op de werkplek van de nabije toekomst ?"] "
Uit ons resultaat blijkt overduidelijk dat de snelheid van de transformatie tot vragen leidt die lastig te beantwoorden zijn. Ons onderzoek toont aan dat er een opzienbarende kloof bestaat in het bewustzijn van belangrijke technologieën onder Europese werknemers. Slechts 60 procent van respondenten had wel eens gehoord van wearable technologieën wat betekent dat 4 van de 10 Europese werknemers nog nooit had gehoord van een fundamentele technologie waarvan wordt voorspeld dat deze een grote impact zal hebben op de werkplek van de toekomst.Deze uitdaging wordt verder benadrukt als we kijken naar andere belangrijke technologieën waarbij het bewustzijn aanzienlijk lager was dan dat van wearables. Slechts 37 procent van de Europese werknemers is op de hoogte van technologieën als bio-printing of cobotics (samenwerkende robots). Respondenten legden ook een gebrek aan bewustzijn aan de dag van algemene technologische trends. Slechts 51 procent gaf aan de term ' , Uit " ["Q-18 Who resultaat blijkt overduidelijk dat de snelheid van de transformatie tot vragen leidt die lastig te beantwoorden zijn ?"] "
om de kloof in het bewustzijn te overbruggen en één die ook door werknemers wordt verwelkomd want 68 procent is positief over blended learning 65 procent over onderwijs via samenwerking en 66 proces geeft aan positief te staan tegenover meta-leren. Het streven naar het implementeren van de voordelen van technologie ["Q-19 Who toont aan dat er een opzienbarende kloof bestaat in het bewustzijn van belangrijke technologie & euml ; n onder europese werknemers ?"] "
Slechts 60 ["Q-20 Who had gehoord eens gehoord van wearable technologie & euml ; n wat betekent dat 4 van de 10 europese werknemers nog nooit had gehoord van een fundamentele technologie waarvan wordt voorspeld dat deze een grote impact zal hebben op de werkplek van de toekomst ?"] "
Slechts 60 ["Q-21 Who wat betekent dat 4 van de 10 europese werknemers nog nooit had gehoord van een fundamentele technologie waarvan wordt voorspeld dat deze een grote impact zal hebben op de werkplek van de toekomst ?"] "
Slechts 60 ["Q-22 Who had gehoord van een fundamentele technologie waarvan wordt voorspeld dat deze een grote impact zal hebben op de werkplek van de toekomst ?"] "
Deze uitdaging wordt verder benadrukt als ["Q-23 Who kijken naar andere belangrijke technologie & euml ; n & nbsp ; waarbij het bewustzijn aanzienlijk lager was dan dat van wearables ?"] "
het bewustzijn aanzienlijk lager ["Q-24 Who was dan dat van wearables ?"] "
Slechts 37 ["Q-25 Who is op de hoogte van technologie & euml ; n als bio - printing of cobotics ( samenwerkende robots ) ?"] "
te begrijpen ["Q-26 Who educatieve doeleinden ) en slechts 35 procent verklaarde iets te weten van omni - channel retail ( een aanpak van verkoop met meerdere kanalen waarbij een consistente online en offline ervaring wordt geboden ) ?"] "
35 ["Q-27 Who te weten van omni - channel retail ( een aanpak van verkoop met meerdere kanalen waarbij een consistente online en offline ervaring wordt geboden ) ?"] "
van omni-channel retail ["Q-28 Who met meerdere kanalen waarbij een consistente online en offline ervaring wordt geboden ) ?"] "
van de technologie ["Q-29 Who ervaring wordt geboden ) ?"] "
van omni-channel retail ["Q-30 Who technologie maar kunnen you de interesse verhogen door kennis te vergroten ? Als onderdeel van het onderzoek gaven you een toelichting op verschillende nieuwe technologie & euml ; n aan europese werknemers ?"] "
bij de adoptie van nieuwe technologie maar kunnen we de interesse verhogen door kennis te vergroten? Als onderdeel van het onderzoek gaven we een toelichting op verschillende nieuwe technologieën aan Europese werknemers. Het bleek dat een groter inzicht leidt tot een veel positievere mening. Over de potentiële integratie van de verschillende technologieën op de werkplek werd met meer kennis dan ook veel optimistischer gedacht. Voor wearables bestond een zeer positieve feedback waarbij 65 procent van werknemers deze technologie aantrekkelijk vond. Organisch afdrukken en bio-printing & cobotics werden door respectievelijk 58 procent en 57 procent van ondervraagden verwelkomd. Van alle technologieën die werden genoemd was het echter 3D-printing dat de grootste interesse wekte onder werknemers want 66 procent gaf aan hiervan positieve verwachtingen te hebben. Gezien het diepgaande effect dat 3D-printing naar verwachting zal hebben op de industrie als , Als onderdeel van het onderzoek " ["Q-32 Who een toelichting op verschillende nieuwe technologie & euml ; n aan europese werknemers ?"] "
van de technologie ["Q-33 Who positievere mening ?"] "
van omni-channel retail ["Q-34 What bestond een zeer positieve deze technologie aantrekkelijk vond ?"] "
van de technologie ["Q-35 Who deze technologie aantrekkelijk vond ?"] "
Van ["Q-36 Who was het echter 3d - printing dat de grootste interesse wekte onder werknemers want 66 procent gaf aan hiervan positieve verwachtingen te hebben ?"] "
Van alle technologieën die werden genoemd was het echter ["Q-37 Who want 66 procent gaf aan hiervan positieve verwachtingen te hebben ?"] "
Gezien ["Q-38 Who geheel en met name in de productie- en retailsector vormt het een aanzienlijke geruststelling dat werknemers openstonden voor de mogelijke impact van de technologie wanneer ze Zich beter bewust waren van de kenmerken en mogelijkheden ?"] "
Gezien het diepgaande ["Q-39 Who met name in de productie- en retailsector vormt het een aanzienlijke geruststelling dat werknemers openstonden voor de mogelijke impact van de technologie wanneer ze Zich beter bewust waren van de kenmerken en mogelijkheden ?"] "
een ["Q-40 Who wordt verwelkomd want 68 procent is positief over blended learning 65 procent over onderwijs via samenwerking en 66 proces geeft aan positief te staan tegenover meta - leren ?"] "
Streef ernaar het bewustzijn te verhogenTechnologische vooruitgang in het onderwijs biedt een andere mogelijkheid om de kloof ["Q-41 Who want 68 procent is positief over blended learning 65 procent over onderwijs via samenwerking en 66 proces geeft aan positief te staan tegenover meta - leren ?"] "
een ["Q-42 Who is positief over blended learning 65 procent over onderwijs via samenwerking en 66 proces geeft aan positief te staan tegenover meta - leren ?"] "
Streef ernaar het bewustzijn te verhogenTechnologische vooruitgang in het onderwijs biedt een andere mogelijkheid om de kloof ["Q-43 Who blended bewustzijn 65 procent over onderwijs via samenwerking en 66 proces geeft aan positief te staan tegenover meta - leren ?"] "
Streef ernaar ["Q-44 Who samenwerking en 66 proces geeft aan positief te staan tegenover meta - leren ?"] "
een ["Q-45 Who geeft aan positief te staan tegenover meta - leren ?"] "
Streef ernaar het bewustzijn te verhogenTechnologische vooruitgang in het onderwijs biedt een andere mogelijkheid om de kloof in het bewustzijn te overbruggen en één die ook door werknemers wordt verwelkomd want 68 procent is positief over blended learning 65 procent over onderwijs via samenwerking en 66 proces geeft aan positief te staan tegenover meta-leren. Het streven naar het implementeren van de voordelen van technologie in de industrie als geheel is belangrijk maar we moeten even hard werken aan het optimaliseren van de geboden mogelijkheden. Hier spelen organisaties een cruciale rol. Momenteel is slechts 14 procent van werknemers van mening dat hun organisatie het 'uitstekend' ["Q-46 What Het streven n J de voordelen van technologie in de industrie als geheel is belangrijk maar you moeten even hard werken aan het optimaliseren van de geboden
ze ["Q-47 Who streven naar het implementeren van de voordelen van technologie in de industrie als geheel is belangrijk maar you moeten even hard werken aan het optimaliseren van de geboden mogelijkheden ?"] "
van technologie in de industrie als geheel ["Q-48 Who is belangrijk maar you moeten even hard werken aan het optimaliseren van de geboden mogelijkheden ?"] "
van technologie ["Q-49 Who moeten even hard werken aan het optimaliseren van de geboden mogelijkheden ?"] "
van de technologie ["Q-50 Who een cruciale rol ?"] "
Momenteel is slechts 14 procent van werknemers van mening dat hun organisatie het 'uitstekend' ["Q-51 What is Momenteel procent van werknemers van mening dat hun organisatie het & # 39 ; uitstekend & # 39 ; doet op het gebied van het bijhouden van de nieuwste technologische ontwikkelingen ?"] "
Momenteel ["Q-52 Who is slechts 14 procent van werknemers van mening dat hun organisatie het & # 39 ; uitstekend & # 39 ; doet op het gebied van het bijhouden van de nieuwste technologische ontwikkelingen ?"] "
Momenteel ["Q-53 Who van mening dat hun organisatie het & # 39 ; uitstekend & # 39 ; doet op het gebied van het bijhouden van de nieuwste technologische ontwikkelingen ?"] "
doet ["Q-54 Who op het gebied van het bijhouden van de nieuwste technologische ontwikkelingen ?"] "
Als organisaties niet streven naar dieper inzicht in deze veranderende technologische context ["Q-55 Who is het nauwelijks voor te stellen dat werknemers deze veranderingen via grotere kennis kunnen bijbenen ?"] "
voor te stellen dat ["Q-56 Who deze veranderingen via grotere kennis kunnen bijbenen ?"] "
van de technologie ["Q-57 Who grotere kennis organisaties bijbenen ?"] "
Uiteindelijk leidt technologie als ["Q-58 Who alleenstaand fenomeen niet tot succes dit wordt behaald via een geslaagde implementatie van de geboden mogelijkheden ?"] "
Momenteel is slechts 14 procent van werknemers van mening dat hun organisatie het 'uitstekend' ["Q-59 What Als you o J van een revolutie in de technologie voor de werkplek moeten you als eerste stap het bewustzijn erover in de industrie als geheel verhogen ?"] "
Als ["Q-60 Who ooit willen profiteren van een revolutie in de technologie voor de werkplek moeten you als eerste stap het bewustzijn erover in de industrie als geheel verhogen ?"] "
van een ["Q-61 Who eerste stap het bewustzijn erover in de industrie als geheel verhogen ?"] "
van de technologie ["Q-62 Who geheel verhogen ?"] "
Technologisch bewustzijn in Europa weten we wel voldoende van de technologie die onze toekomst zal vormgeven? De vooruitgang in moderne technologie vindt ["Q-01 Technologisch bewustzijn in Europa weten in what you wel voldoende van de technologie die onze toekomst zal vormgeven ? De vooruitgang met zeer grote vaart plaats ?"] "
Technologisch bewustzijn ["Q-02 Technologisch bewustzijn in Europa whom w w N N N wel voldoende van de technologie die onze toekomst zal vormgeven ? De vooruitgang in moderne technologie vindt met zeer grote vaart plaats ?"] "
Technologisch bewustzijn ["Q-03 Technologisch bewustzijn in Europa weten what you w N de technologie die onze toekomst zal vormgeven ? De vooruitgang in moderne technologie vindt met zeer grote vaart plaats ?"] "
zeer ["Q-04 Technologisch bewustzijn in Europa weten you wel voldoende van de technologie die onze toekomst zal vormgeven ? De vooruitgang in what moderne technologie vindt met ?"] "
Europa ["Q-05 Who wel voldoende van de technologie die onze toekomst zal vormgeven ? De vooruitgang in moderne technologie vindt met zeer grote vaart plaats ?"] "
van de technologie ["Q-06 Who met zeer grote vaart plaats ?"] "
Slechts 51 procent gaf aan de term 'blended ["Q-07 ]
7000 ["Q-08 Maar de opkomst van nieuwe mogelijkheden en technologie & euml ; n zou ook heel what g g N N N een soort technologie - moeheid ?"] "
39;blended ["Q-09 ]
die te lijden hebben onder deze stortvloed aan technologische innovatie. Technologie vormt al een kernonderdeel van de moderne werkplek van geavanceerde printers tot de supercomputers die we in onze broekzak meedragen. Maar de vraag is kunnen we het allemaal wel bijhouden al die technologische innovaties? Advances in modern technology are occurring at a lightning speed. Yet the emergence of new capabilities and disruptive technologies could well be creating a landscape of tech-fatigue. It\u2019s not simply consumers who are suffering from this tidal wave of technological innovation. Technology is already a core part of the modern workplace from state-of-the-art printers to the super computers we carry in our pockets. With the emergence of so much technological innovation is awareness keeping pace?Inzicht in het bewustzijn van technologieEpson heeft onlangs onderzoek uitgevoerd waarbij 17 internationale branche-experts en meer dan 7000 Europese bedrijfsmanagers en werknemers werden , Maar de opkomst van nieuwe mogelijkheden en technologieën zou ook heel goed kunnen leiden tot een soort technologie-moeheid. Het zijn niet alleen consumenten die te lijden hebben onder deze stortvloed aan technologische innovatie. Technologie vormt al een kernonderdeel van de moderne werkplek van geavanceerde printers tot de supercomputers die we in onze broekzak meedragen. Maar de vraag is kunnen we het allemaal wel bijhouden al die technologische innovaties? Advances in modern technology are occurring at a lightning speed. Yet the emergence of new capabilities and disruptive technologies could well be creating a landscape of tech-fatigue. It\u2019s not simply consumers who are suffering from this tidal wave of technological innovation. Technology is already a core part of the modern workplace from state-of-the-art printers to the super computers we carry in our pockets. With the emergence of so much technological innovation is awareness keeping pace?Inzicht in het bewustzijn
Technologisch bewustzijn in Europa weten we wel voldoende van de technologie die onze toekomst zal vormgeven? De vooruitgang in moderne technologie vindt met zeer grote vaart plaats. Maar de opkomst van nieuwe mogelijkheden en technologieën zou ook heel goed kunnen leiden tot een soort technologie-moeheid. Het zijn niet alleen consumenten die te lijden hebben onder deze stortvloed aan technologische innovatie. Technologie vormt al een kernonderdeel van de moderne werkplek van geavanceerde printers tot de supercomputers die we in onze broekzak meedragen. Maar de vraag is kunnen we het allemaal wel bijhouden al die technologische innovaties? Advances in modern technology are occurring at a lightning speed. Yet the emergence of new capabilities and disruptive technologies could well be creating a landscape of tech-fatigue. It\u2019s not simply consumers who are suffering from this tidal wave of technological innovation. Technology is already a core part of the modern workplace fr , Maar de opkomst van nieuwe mogelijkheden en technologieën zou ook heel goed kunnen leiden tot een soort technologie-moeheid. Het zijn niet alleen consumenten die te lijden hebben onder deze stortvloed aan technologische innovatie. Technologie vormt al een kernonderdeel van de moderne werkplek van geavanceerde printers tot de supercomputers " ["Q-013 Technologie vormt al een kernonderdeel van de moderne de what werkplek van geavanceerde printers tot die you in onze broekzak meedragen ?"] "
te lijden hebben onder deze stortvloed aan technologische innovatie. Technologie vormt al een kernonderdeel van de moderne werkplek van geavanceerde printers tot de supercomputers die we in onze broekzak meedragen ["Q-014 Technologie vormt al een kernonderdeel van de moderne werkplek van geavanceerde printers tot in what de supercomputers die you ?"] "
Maar de opkomst van nieuwe ["Q-015 Technologie vormt al een kernonderdeel van de moderne werkplek van geavanceerde printers tot whom de supercomputers d N in onze broekzak meedragen ?"] "
al een ["Q-016 Who tot de supercomputers die you in onze broekzak meedragen ?"] "
al een kernonderdeel van de moderne werkplek van geavanceerde printers tot de supercomputers ["Q-017 Who die you in onze broekzak meedragen ?"] "
39;blended learning' ["Q-018 ]
modern technology ["Q-019 Maar de vraag is in what kunnen you het allemaal wel bijhouden al die technologische innovaties ? advances are occurring at a lightning speed ?"] "
lightning speed ["Q-020 Maar de vraag is kunnen you het allemaal wel bijhouden al die technologische innovaties ? advances in at what are modern technology occurring ?"] "
al die technologische innovaties ["Q-021 Maar de vraag is what kunnen you h N ? advances in modern technology are occurring at a lightning speed ?"] "
Maar de vraag ["Q-022 Maar de vraag is kunnen you het allemaal wel bijhouden al die technologische innovaties ? advances in what are modern technology occurring at a lightning speed ?"] "
Maar de vraag ["Q-023 Who het allemaal wel bijhouden al die technologische innovaties ? advances in modern technology are occurring at a lightning speed ?"] "
Advances in modern technology ["Q-024 Who are occurring at a lightning speed ?"] "
39;blended learning' ["Q-025 ]
tech-fatigue ["Q-026 Yet the emergence of new capabilities and disruptive technologies could well be creating a landscape ?"] "
lightning speed ["Q-027 Yet the emergence of new capabilities and what disruptive technologies could well be creating of tech - fatigue ?"] "
new capabilities and disruptive technologies ["Q-028 Who could well be creating a landscape of tech - fatigue ?"] "
39;blended learning' ["Q-029 ]
tidal wave ["Q-030 From what it \u2019 s not simply consumers who are suffering of technological innovation ?"] "
technological innovation ["Q-031 Of what it \u2019 s not simply consumers who are suffering from this tidal wave ?"] "
39;blended ["Q-032 ]
super computers ["Q-033 To what is Technology already a core part of the modern workplace from state - of - the - art printers carry in your pockets ?"] "
modern workplace ["Q-034 Of what is Technology already a core part from state - of - the - art printers to the super computers you carry in your pockets ?"] "
state-of-the-art printers ["Q-035 From what is Technology already a core part of the modern workplace to the super computers you carry in your pockets ?"] "
our pockets ["Q-036 Technology is already a core part of the modern workplace from state - of - the - art printers to in what the super computers you carry ?"] "
core part ["Q-037 What is Technology of the modern workplace from state - of - the - art printers to the super computers you carry in your pockets ?"] "
Technology ["Q-038 Who is already a core part of the modern workplace from state - of - the - art printers to the super computers you carry in your pockets ?"] "
state-of-the-art printers to the super computers ["Q-039 Who carry in your pockets ?"] "
Technologisch bewustzijn in Europa weten we wel voldoende van de technologie die onze toekomst zal vormgeven? De vooruitgang in moderne technologie vindt met zeer grote vaart plaats. Maar de opkomst van nieuwe mogelijkheden en technologieën zou ook heel goed kunnen leiden tot een soort technologie-moeheid. Het zijn niet alleen consumenten die te lijden hebben onder deze stortvloed aan technologische innovatie. Technologie vormt al een kernonderdeel van de moderne werkplek van geavanceerde printers tot de supercomputers die we in onze broekzak meedragen. Maar de vraag is kunnen we het allemaal wel bijhouden al die technologische innovaties? Advances in modern technology are occurring at a lightning speed. Yet the emergence of new capabilities and disruptive technologies could well be creating a landscape of tech-fatigue. It\u2019s not simply consumers who are suffering from this tidal wave of technological innovation. Technology is already a core part of the modern workplace fr , het bewustzijn van technologieEpson " ["Q-041 With the emergence of so in what is much technological innovation awareness keeping pace ? Inzicht heeft onlangs onderzoek uitgevoerd waarbij 17 internationale branche - experts en meer dan 7000 europese bedrijfsmanagers en werknemers werden ondervraagd ?"] "
het bewustzijn van technologieEpson ["Q-042 With the emergence of so much technological innovation is awareness keeping pace ? Inzicht in het bewustzijn van technologieepson heeft en what onlangs onderzoek waarbij 17 internationale branche - experts europese bedrijfsmanagers en werknemers werden ondervraagd ?"] "
awareness keeping pace?Inzicht ["Q-043 With the emergence of so is much technological innovation ? Inzicht in het bewustzijn van technologieepson heeft onlangs onderzoek uitgevoerd waarbij 17 internationale branche - experts en meer dan 7000 europese bedrijfsmanagers en werknemers werden ondervraagd ?"] "
pace?Inzicht ["Q-044 With the emergence of so much technological innovation is awareness keeping pace ? Inzicht in h N bewustzijn van technologieepson what h h N N N onderzoek uitgevoerd waarbij 17 internationale branche - experts en meer dan 7000 europese bedrijfsmanagers en werknemers werden ondervraagd ?"] "
17 ["Q-045 With the emergence of so much technological innovation is awareness keeping pace ? Inzicht in het bewustzijn van technologieepson heeft what onlangs o internationale branche - experts en meer dan 7000 europese bedrijfsmanagers en werknemers werden ondervraagd ?"] "
Maar de opkomst van nieuwe mogelijkheden en technologieën zou ook heel goed kunnen leiden tot een soort technologie-moeheid. Het zijn niet alleen consumenten die te lijden hebben onder deze stortvloed aan technologische innovatie. Technologie vormt al een kernonderdeel van de moderne werkplek van geavanceerde printers tot de supercomputers die we in onze broekzak meedragen. Maar de vraag is kunnen we het allemaal wel bijhouden al die technologische innovaties? Advances in modern technology are occurring at a lightning speed. Yet the emergence of new capabilities and disruptive technologies could well be creating a landscape of tech-fatigue. It\u2019s not simply consumers who are suffering from this tidal wave of technological innovation. Technology is already a core part of the modern workplace from state-of-the-art printers to the super computers we carry in our pockets. With the emergence of so much technological innovation is awareness keeping pace?Inzicht question_token , Maar de vraag is kunnen we het allemaal wel bijhouden al die technologische innovaties? Advances in modern technology are occurring at a lightning speed. Yet the emergence of new capabilities and disruptive technologies could well be creating a landscape of tech-fatigue. It\u2019s not simply consumers who are suffering from this tidal wave of technological innovation. Technology is already a core part of the modern workplace from state-of-the-art printers to the super computers we carry in our pockets. With the emergence of so much technological innovation is awareness keeping pace?Inzicht " ["Q-047 With the emergence of so much technological innovation is awareness keeping pace ? Inzicht in het bewustzijn van technologieepson heeft onlangs onderzoek uitgevoerd waarbij 17 internationale branche - experts en meer dan 7000 europese bedrijfsmanagers en"
technological innovation ["Q-048 Who is awareness keeping pace ? Inzicht in het bewustzijn van technologieepson heeft onlangs onderzoek uitgevoerd waarbij 17 internationale branche - experts en meer dan 7000 europese bedrijfsmanagers en werknemers werden ondervraagd ?"] "
het bewustzijn van technologieEpson ["Q-049 Who onderzoek emergence waarbij 17 internationale branche - experts en meer dan 7000 europese bedrijfsmanagers en werknemers werden ondervraagd ?"] "
voor de mogelijke ["Q-050 Who en werknemers werden ondervraagd ?"] "
van de technologie ["Q-051 Who werden ondervraagd ?"] "
Technologisch bewustzijn in Europa weten we wel voldoende van de technologie die onze toekomst zal vormgeven? De vooruitgang in moderne technologie vindt met zeer grote vaart plaats. Maar de opkomst van nieuwe mogelijkheden en technologieën zou ook heel goed kunnen leiden tot een soort technologie-moeheid. Het zijn niet alleen consumenten die te lijden hebben onder deze stortvloed aan technologische innovatie. Technologie vormt al een kernonderdeel van de moderne werkplek van geavanceerde printers tot de supercomputers die we in onze broekzak meedragen. Maar de vraag is kunnen we het allemaal wel bijhouden al die technologische innovaties? Advances in modern technology are occurring at a lightning speed. Yet the emergence of new capabilities and disruptive technologies could well be creating a landscape of tech-fatigue. It\u2019s not simply consumers who are suffering from this tidal wave of technological innovation. Technology is already a core part of the modern workplace fr , Hierin verkenden we de impact van technologie op de werkplek van de nabije toekomst. Uit ons resultaat blijkt overduidelijk dat de snelheid van de transformatie tot vragen leidt die lastig te beantwoorden zijn. Ons onderzoek toont aan dat er een opzienbarende kloof bestaat in het bewustzijn van belangrijke technologieën onder Europese werknemers. Slechts 60 procent van respondenten had wel eens gehoord van wearable technologieën wat betekent dat 4 van de 10 Europese werknemers nog nooit had gehoord van een fundamentele technologie waarvan wordt voorspeld dat deze een grote impact zal hebben op de werkplek van de toekomst.Deze uitdaging wordt verder benadrukt als we kijken naar andere belangrijke technologieën waarbij het bewustzijn aanzienlijk lager was dan dat van wearables. Slechts 37 procent van de Europese werknemers is op de hoogte van technologieën als bio-printing of cobotics (samenwerkende robots). Respondenten legden ook een gebrek aan bewustzijn a
Hierin verkenden ["Q-054 Who de impact van technologie op de werkplek van de nabije toekomst ?"] "
Technologisch bewustzijn in Europa weten we wel voldoende van de technologie die onze toekomst zal vormgeven? De vooruitgang in moderne technologie vindt met zeer grote vaart plaats. Maar de opkomst van nieuwe mogelijkheden en technologieën zou ook heel goed kunnen leiden tot een soort technologie-moeheid. Het zijn niet alleen consumenten die te lijden hebben onder deze stortvloed aan technologische innovatie. Technologie vormt al een kernonderdeel van de moderne werkplek van geavanceerde printers tot de supercomputers die we in onze broekzak meedragen. Maar de vraag is kunnen we het allemaal wel bijhouden al die technologische innovaties? Advances in modern technology are occurring at a lightning speed. Yet the emergence of new capabilities and disruptive technologies could well be creating a landscape of tech-fatigue. It\u2019s not simply consumers who are suffering from this tidal wave of technological innovation. Technology is already a core part of the modern workplace fr , Uit ons resultaat blijkt overduidelijk dat de snelheid van de transformatie tot vragen leidt die lastig te beantwoorden zijn. Ons onderzoek toont aan dat er een opzienbarende kloof bestaat in het bewustzijn van belangrijke technologieën onder Europese werknemers. Slechts 60 procent van respondenten had wel eens gehoord van wearable technologieën wat betekent dat 4 van de 10 Europese werknemers nog nooit had gehoord van een fundamentele technologie waarvan wordt voorspeld dat deze een grote impact zal hebben op de werkplek van de toekomst.Deze uitdaging wordt verder benadrukt als we kijken naar andere belangrijke technologieën waarbij het bewustzijn aanzienlijk lager was dan dat van wearables. Slechts 37 procent van de Europese werknemers is op de hoogte van technologieën als bio-printing of cobotics (samenwerkende robots). Respondenten legden ook een gebrek aan bewustzijn aan de dag van algemene technologische trends. Slechts 51 procent gaf aan de term '
Uit ["Q-057 Who resultaat blijkt overduidelijk dat de snelheid van de transformatie tot vragen leidt die lastig te beantwoorden zijn ?"] "
39;blended learning' te begrijpen (waarbij een combinatie van online en offline hulpmiddelen worden gebruikt voor educatieve doeleinden) en slechts 35 procent verklaarde iets te weten van omni-channel retail (een aanpak van verkoop met meerdere kanalen waarbij een consistente online en offline ervaring wordt geboden).Een groeiend bewustzijn leidt tot een positieve houdingHet gebrek aan bewustzijn leidt tot problemen bij de adoptie van nieuwe technologie maar kunnen we de interesse verhogen door kennis te vergroten? Als onderdeel van het onderzoek gaven we een toelichting op verschillende nieuwe technologieën aan Europese werknemers. Het bleek dat een groter inzicht leidt tot een veel positievere mening. Over de potentiële integratie van de verschillende technologieën op de werkplek werd met meer kennis dan ook veel optimistischer gedacht. Voor wearables bestond een zeer positieve feedback waarbij 65 procent van werknemers deze technologie aantrekkelijk vond. , het bewustzijn van belangrijke technologieën onder Europese werknemers. Slechts 60 procent van respondenten had wel eens gehoord van wearable technologieën wat betekent dat 4 van de 10 Europese werknemers nog nooit had gehoord van een fundamentele technologie waarvan wordt voorspeld dat deze een grote impact zal hebben op de werkplek van de toekomst.Deze uitdaging wordt verder benadrukt als we kijken naar andere belangrijke technologieën waarbij het bewustzijn aanzienlijk lager was dan dat van wearables. Slechts 37 procent van de Europese werknemers is op de hoogte van technologieën als bio-printing of cobotics (samenwerkende robots). Respondenten legden ook een gebrek aan bewustzijn aan de dag van algemene technologische trends. Slechts 51 procent gaf aan de term 'blended learning' te begrijpen (waarbij een combinatie van online en offline hulpmiddelen worden gebruikt voor educatieve doeleinden) en slechts 35 procent verklaarde iets te weten van om
Slechts 60 procent van respondenten had wel eens gehoord van wearable technologieën wat betekent dat 4 van de 10 Europese werknemers nog nooit had gehoord van een fundamentele technologie waarvan wordt voorspeld dat deze een grote impact zal hebben op de werkplek van de toekomst.Deze uitdaging wordt verder benadrukt als we kijken naar andere belangrijke technologieën waarbij het bewustzijn aanzienlijk lager was dan dat van wearables. Slechts 37 procent van de Europese werknemers is op de hoogte van technologieën als bio-printing of cobotics (samenwerkende robots). Respondenten legden ook een gebrek aan bewustzijn aan de dag van algemene technologische trends. Slechts 51 procent gaf aan de term 'blended learning' te begrijpen (waarbij een combinatie van online en offline hulpmiddelen worden gebruikt voor educatieve doeleinden) en slechts 35 procent verklaarde iets te weten van omni-channel retail (een aanpak van verkoop met meerdere kanalen waarbij een co , om de kloof in het bewustzijn te overbruggen en één die ook door werknemers wordt verwelkomd want 68 procent is positief over blended learning 65 procent over onderwijs via samenwerking en 66 proces geeft aan positief te staan tegenover meta-leren. Het streven naar het implementeren van de voordelen van technologie " ["Q-061 Who toont aan dat er een opzienbarende kloof bestaat in het bewustzijn van belangrijke technologie & euml ; n onder europese werknemers ?"] "
Technologisch bewustzijn in Europa weten we wel voldoende van de technologie die onze toekomst zal vormgeven? De vooruitgang in moderne technologie vindt met zeer grote vaart plaats. Maar de opkomst van nieuwe mogelijkheden en technologieën zou ook heel goed kunnen leiden tot een soort technologie-moeheid. Het zijn niet alleen consumenten die te lijden hebben onder deze stortvloed aan technologische innovatie. Technologie vormt al een kernonderdeel van de moderne werkplek van geavanceerde printers tot de supercomputers die we in onze broekzak meedragen. Maar de vraag is kunnen we het allemaal wel bijhouden al die technologische innovaties? Advances in modern technology are occurring at a lightning speed. Yet the emergence of new capabilities and disruptive technologies could well be creating a landscape of tech-fatigue. It\u2019s not simply consumers who are suffering from this tidal wave of technological innovation. Technology is already a core part of the modern workplace fr , Slechts 60 procent van respondenten had wel eens gehoord van wearable technologieën wat betekent dat 4 van de 10 Europese werknemers nog nooit had gehoord van een fundamentele technologie waarvan wordt voorspeld dat deze een grote impact zal hebben op de werkplek van de toekomst.Deze uitdaging wordt verder benadrukt als we kijken naar andere belangrijke technologieën waarbij het bewustzijn aanzienlijk lager was dan dat van wearables. Slechts 37 procent van de Europese werknemers is op de hoogte van technologieën als bio-printing of cobotics (samenwerkende robots). Respondenten legden ook een gebrek aan bewustzijn aan de dag van algemene technologische trends. Slechts 51 procent gaf aan de term 'blended learning' te begrijpen (waarbij een combinatie van online en offline hulpmiddelen worden gebruikt voor educatieve doeleinden) en slechts 35 procent verklaarde iets te weten van omni-channel retail (een aanpak van verkoop met meerdere kanalen waarbij een co
Slechts 60 procent van respondenten had wel eens gehoord van wearable technologieën wat betekent dat 4 van de 10 Europese werknemers nog nooit had gehoord van een fundamentele technologie waarvan wordt voorspeld dat deze een grote impact zal hebben op de werkplek van de toekomst.Deze uitdaging wordt verder benadrukt als we kijken naar andere belangrijke technologieën waarbij het bewustzijn aanzienlijk lager was dan dat van wearables. Slechts 37 procent van de Europese werknemers is op de hoogte van technologieën als bio-printing of cobotics (samenwerkende robots). Respondenten legden ook een gebrek aan bewustzijn aan de dag van algemene technologische trends. Slechts 51 procent gaf aan de term 'blended learning' te begrijpen (waarbij een combinatie van online en offline hulpmiddelen worden gebruikt voor educatieve doeleinden) en slechts 35 procent verklaarde iets te weten van omni-channel retail (een aanpak van verkoop met meerdere kanalen waarbij een co , Slechts 60 procent van respondenten had wel eens gehoord van wearable technologieën wat betekent dat 4 van de 10 Europese werknemers nog nooit had gehoord van een fundamentele technologie waarvan wordt voorspeld dat deze een grote impact zal hebben op de werkplek van de toekomst.Deze uitdaging wordt verder benadrukt als we kijken naar andere belangrijke technologieën waarbij het bewustzijn aanzienlijk lager was dan dat van wearables. Slechts 37 procent van de Europese werknemers is op de hoogte van technologieën als bio-printing of cobotics (samenwerkende robots). Respondenten legden ook een gebrek aan bewustzijn aan de dag van algemene technologische trends. Slechts 51 procent gaf aan de term 'blended learning' te begrijpen (waarbij een combinatie van online en offline hulpmiddelen worden gebruikt voor educatieve doeleinden) en slechts 35 procent verklaarde iets te weten van omni-channel retail (een aanpak van verkoop met meerdere kanalen waarbij een co
Slechts 60 ["Q-066 Who had gehoord eens gehoord van wearable technologie & euml ; n wat betekent dat 4 van de 10 europese werknemers nog nooit had gehoord van een fundamentele technologie waarvan wordt voorspeld dat deze een grote impact zal hebben op de werkplek van de toekomst ?"] "
Slechts 60 ["Q-067 Who wat betekent dat 4 van de 10 europese werknemers nog nooit had gehoord van een fundamentele technologie waarvan wordt voorspeld dat deze een grote impact zal hebben op de werkplek van de toekomst ?"] "
Slechts 60 ["Q-068 Who had gehoord van een fundamentele technologie waarvan wordt voorspeld dat deze een grote impact zal hebben op de werkplek van de toekomst ?"] "
39;blended learning' ["Q-069 ]
Slechts 60 procent van respondenten had wel eens gehoord van wearable technologieën wat betekent dat 4 van de 10 Europese werknemers nog nooit had gehoord van een fundamentele technologie waarvan wordt voorspeld dat deze een grote impact zal hebben op de werkplek van de toekomst.Deze uitdaging wordt verder benadrukt als we kijken naar andere belangrijke technologieën waarbij het bewustzijn aanzienlijk lager was dan dat van wearables. Slechts 37 procent van de Europese werknemers is op de hoogte van technologieën als bio-printing of cobotics (samenwerkende robots). Respondenten legden ook een gebrek aan bewustzijn aan de dag van algemene technologische trends. Slechts 51 procent gaf aan de term 'blended learning' te begrijpen (waarbij een combinatie van online en offline hulpmiddelen worden gebruikt voor educatieve doeleinden) en slechts 35 procent verklaarde iets te weten van omni-channel retail (een aanpak van verkoop met meerdere kanalen waarbij een co , Deze uitdaging wordt verder benadrukt als we kijken naar andere belangrijke technologieën waarbij " ["Q-071 Deze uitdaging do wordt verder benadrukt als you kijken & euml ; n & nbsp ; waarbij het bewustzijn aanzienlijk lager was dan dat van wearables ?"] "
Slechts 60 ["Q-072 Deze uitdaging wordt verder benadrukt als you kijken naar andere belangrijke technologie & euml ; n & nbsp ; what N was dan dat van wearables ?"] "
dan dat van wearables ["Q-073 Deze uitdaging wordt verder benadrukt als you kijken naar andere belangrijke technologie & euml ; n & nbsp ; waarbij het what did bewustzijn aanzienlijk lager was ?"] "
Deze uitdaging wordt verder benadrukt als ["Q-074 Who kijken naar andere belangrijke technologie & euml ; n & nbsp ; waarbij het bewustzijn aanzienlijk lager was dan dat van wearables ?"] "
het bewustzijn aanzienlijk lager ["Q-075 Who was dan dat van wearables ?"] "
Slechts 51 procent gaf aan de term 'blended ["Q-076 ]
op de hoogte van technologieën als bio-printing of cobotics ["Q-077 Slechts 37 procent van de of what is europese werknemers op de hoogte van technologie & euml ; n als bio - printing ( samenwerkende robots ) ?"] "
Slechts 37 ["Q-078 Who is op de hoogte van technologie & euml ; n als bio - printing of cobotics ( samenwerkende robots ) ?"] "
39;blended learning' ["Q-079 ]
Technologisch bewustzijn in Europa weten we wel voldoende van de technologie die onze toekomst zal vormgeven? De vooruitgang in moderne technologie vindt met zeer grote vaart plaats. Maar de opkomst van nieuwe mogelijkheden en technologieën zou ook heel goed kunnen leiden tot een soort technologie-moeheid. Het zijn niet alleen consumenten die te lijden hebben onder deze stortvloed aan technologische innovatie. Technologie vormt al een kernonderdeel van de moderne werkplek van geavanceerde printers tot de supercomputers die we in onze broekzak meedragen. Maar de vraag is kunnen we het allemaal wel bijhouden al die technologische innovaties? Advances in modern technology are occurring at a lightning speed. Yet the emergence of new capabilities and disruptive technologies could well be creating a landscape of tech-fatigue. It\u2019s not simply consumers who are suffering from this tidal wave of technological innovation. Technology is already a core part of the modern workplace fr , van omni-channel retail " ["Q-081 Slechts 51 procent gaf aan de term & # 39 ; blended learning & # 39 ; te begrijpen ( waarbij e N combinatie van online en offline hulpmiddelen worden gebruikt voor what e e N N N ) en slechts 35 procent verklaarde iets te weten van omni - channel retail ( een aanpak van verkoop met meerdere kanalen waarbij een consistente online en offline ervaring wordt geboden ) ?"] "
van omni-channel ["Q-082 Slechts 51 procent gaf aan de term & # 39 ; blended learning & # 39 ; te begrijpen ( waarbij een combinatie van online en offline hulpmiddelen worden gebruikt voor educatieve doeleinden ) en slechts 35 procent verklaarde iets te weten van omni - channel retail ( what een aanpak van verkoop met een consistente online en offline ervaring wordt geboden ) ?"] "
te begrijpen ["Q-083 Slechts 51 procent gaf aan de term & # 39 ; blended learning & # 39 ; te begrijpen ( waarbij een combinatie van online en offline hulpmiddelen worden gebruikt voor educatieve doeleinden ) en slechts 35 procent verklaarde iets te weten van omni - channel retail ( een aanpak van verkoop met meerdere kanalen waarbij een consistente online en what offline ervaring ervaring ) ?"] "
te begrijpen ["Q-084 Who educatieve doeleinden ) en slechts 35 procent verklaarde iets te weten van omni - channel retail ( een aanpak van verkoop met meerdere kanalen waarbij een consistente online en offline ervaring wordt geboden ) ?"] "
35 ["Q-085 Who te weten van omni - channel retail ( een aanpak van verkoop met meerdere kanalen waarbij een consistente online en offline ervaring wordt geboden ) ?"] "
van omni-channel retail ["Q-086 Who met meerdere kanalen waarbij een consistente online en offline ervaring wordt geboden ) ?"] "
van de technologie ["Q-087 Who ervaring wordt geboden ) ?"] "
Slechts 51 procent gaf aan de term 'blended learning' te begrijpen (waarbij een combinatie van online en offline hulpmiddelen worden gebruikt voor educatieve doeleinden) en slechts 35 ["Q-088 Slechts 51 procent gaf aan de term & # 39 ; blended learning & # 39 ; te begrijpen ( waarbij een combinatie van online en offline hulpmiddelen how much worden gebruikt voor educatieve doeleinden ) e J procent verklaarde iets te weten van omni - channel retail ( een aanpak van verkoop met meerdere kanalen waarbij een consistente online en offline ervaring wordt geboden ) ?"] "
39;blended learning' ["Q-089 ]
van omni-channel retail ["Q-090 Een groeiend bewustzijn leidt tot een positieve houdinghet gebrek aan bewustzijn leidt tot problemen bij de adoptie van & nbsp ; nieuwe technologie maar kunnen you de interesse verhogen door kennis te vergroten ? Als onderdeel van het onderzoek gaven aan what een you toelichting op verschillende nieuwe technologie & euml ; n ?"] "
35 procent verklaarde iets te weten van omni-channel retail ["Q-091 Een what g g N N N een positieve houdinghet gebrek aan bewustzijn leidt tot problemen bij de adoptie van & nbsp ; nieuwe technologie maar kunnen you de interesse verhogen door kennis te vergroten ? Als onderdeel van het onderzoek gaven you een toelichting op verschillende nieuwe technologie & euml ; n aan europese werknemers ?"] "
Slechts 60 procent van respondenten had wel eens gehoord van wearable technologieën wat betekent dat 4 van de 10 Europese werknemers nog nooit had gehoord van een fundamentele technologie waarvan wordt voorspeld dat deze een grote impact zal hebben op de werkplek van de toekomst.Deze uitdaging wordt verder benadrukt als we kijken naar andere belangrijke technologieën waarbij het bewustzijn aanzienlijk lager was dan dat van wearables. Slechts 37 procent van de Europese werknemers is op de hoogte van technologieën als bio-printing of cobotics (samenwerkende robots). Respondenten legden ook een gebrek aan bewustzijn aan de dag van algemene technologische trends. Slechts 51 procent gaf aan de term 'blended learning' te begrijpen (waarbij een combinatie van online en offline hulpmiddelen worden gebruikt voor educatieve doeleinden) en slechts 35 procent verklaarde iets te weten van omni-channel retail ["Q-092 Een groeiend bew
van omni-channel retail ["Q-093 Een groeiend bewustzijn leidt t N een positieve houdinghet gebrek aan bewustzijn leidt tot problemen bij de adoptie van & nbsp ; what N de interesse verhogen door kennis te vergroten ? Als onderdeel van het onderzoek gaven you een toelichting op verschillende nieuwe technologie & euml ; n aan europese werknemers ?"] "
Maar de opkomst van nieuwe mogelijkheden en technologieën zou ook heel goed kunnen leiden tot een soort technologie-moeheid. Het zijn niet alleen consumenten die te lijden hebben onder deze stortvloed aan technologische innovatie. Technologie vormt al een kernonderdeel van de moderne werkplek van geavanceerde printers tot de supercomputers die we in onze broekzak meedragen. Maar de vraag is kunnen we het allemaal wel bijhouden al die technologische innovaties? Advances in modern technology are occurring at a lightning speed. Yet the emergence of new capabilities and disruptive technologies could well be creating a landscape of tech-fatigue. It\u2019s not simply consumers who are suffering from this tidal wave of technological innovation. Technology is already a core part of the modern workplace from state-of-the-art printers to the super computers we carry in our pockets. With the emergence of so much technological innovation is awareness keeping pace?Inzicht in het bewustzijn , Slechts 60 procent van respondenten had wel eens gehoord van wearable technologieën wat betekent dat 4 van de 10 Europese werknemers nog nooit had gehoord van een fundamentele technologie waarvan wordt voorspeld dat deze een grote impact zal hebben op de werkplek van de toekomst.Deze uitdaging wordt verder benadrukt als we kijken naar andere belangrijke technologieën waarbij het bewustzijn aanzienlijk lager was dan dat van wearables. Slechts 37 procent van de Europese werknemers is op de hoogte van technologieën als bio-printing of cobotics (samenwerkende robots). Respondenten legden ook een gebrek aan bewustzijn aan de dag van algemene technologische trends. Slechts 51 procent gaf aan de term 'blended learning' te begrijpen (waarbij een combinatie van online en offline hulpmiddelen worden gebruikt voor educatieve doeleinden) en slechts 35 procent verklaarde iets te weten van omni-channel retail " ["Q-095 Een groeiend bew
van omni-channel retail ["Q-096 Een groeiend bewustzijn leidt tot e J positieve houdinghet gebrek aan bewustzijn leidt tot problemen bij de adoptie van & nbsp ; nieuwe technologie maar kunnen you de interesse verhogen door kennis te vergroten ? Als onderdeel van het onderzoek gaven what you e J & euml ; n aan europese werknemers ?"] "
van omni-channel retail ["Q-097 Who technologie maar kunnen you de interesse verhogen door kennis te vergroten ? Als onderdeel van het onderzoek gaven you een toelichting op verschillende nieuwe technologie & euml ; n aan europese werknemers ?"] "
bij de adoptie van nieuwe technologie maar kunnen we de interesse verhogen door kennis te vergroten? Als onderdeel van het onderzoek gaven we een toelichting op verschillende nieuwe technologieën aan Europese werknemers. Het bleek dat een groter inzicht leidt tot een veel positievere mening. Over de potentiële integratie van de verschillende technologieën op de werkplek werd met meer kennis dan ook veel optimistischer gedacht. Voor wearables bestond een zeer positieve feedback waarbij 65 procent van werknemers deze technologie aantrekkelijk vond. Organisch afdrukken en bio-printing & cobotics werden door respectievelijk 58 procent en 57 procent van ondervraagden verwelkomd. Van alle technologieën die werden genoemd was het echter 3D-printing dat de grootste interesse wekte onder werknemers want 66 procent gaf aan hiervan positieve verwachtingen te hebben. Gezien het diepgaande effect dat 3D-printing naar verwachting zal hebben op de industrie als , Als onderdeel van het onderzoek " ["Q-099 Who een toelichting op verschillende nieuwe technologie & euml ; n aan europese werknemers ?"] "
Technologisch bewustzijn in Europa weten we wel voldoende van de technologie die onze toekomst zal vormgeven? De vooruitgang in moderne technologie vindt met zeer grote vaart plaats. Maar de opkomst van nieuwe mogelijkheden en technologieën zou ook heel goed kunnen leiden tot een soort technologie-moeheid. Het zijn niet alleen consumenten die te lijden hebben onder deze stortvloed aan technologische innovatie. Technologie vormt al een kernonderdeel van de moderne werkplek van geavanceerde printers tot de supercomputers die we in onze broekzak meedragen. Maar de vraag is kunnen we het allemaal wel bijhouden al die technologische innovaties? Advances in modern technology are occurring at a lightning speed. Yet the emergence of new capabilities and disruptive technologies could well be creating a landscape of tech-fatigue. It\u2019s not simply consumers who are suffering from this tidal wave of technological innovation. Technology is already a core part of the modern workplace fr , van de technologie " ["Q-0101 Who positievere mening ?"] "
Technologisch bewustzijn in Europa weten we wel voldoende van de technologie die onze toekomst zal vormgeven? De vooruitgang in moderne technologie vindt met zeer grote vaart plaats. Maar de opkomst van nieuwe mogelijkheden en technologieën zou ook heel goed kunnen leiden tot een soort technologie-moeheid. Het zijn niet alleen consumenten die te lijden hebben onder deze stortvloed aan technologische innovatie. Technologie vormt al een kernonderdeel van de moderne werkplek van geavanceerde printers tot de supercomputers die we in onze broekzak meedragen. Maar de vraag is kunnen we het allemaal wel bijhouden al die technologische innovaties? Advances in modern technology are occurring at a lightning speed. Yet the emergence of new capabilities and disruptive technologies could well be creating a landscape of tech-fatigue. It\u2019s not simply consumers who are suffering from this tidal wave of technological innovation. Technology is already a core part of the modern workplace fr , 39;blended " ["Q-0103 ]
Voor wearables bestond een zeer positieve feedback waarbij 65 procent van werknemers deze technologie aantrekkelijk vond ["Q-0104 Voor what w w N N N een zeer positieve feedback waarbij 65 procent van werknemers deze technologie aantrekkelijk vond ?"] "
van omni-channel retail ["Q-0105 What bestond een zeer positieve deze technologie aantrekkelijk vond ?"] "
van technologie ["Q-0106 Voor wearables bestond een zeer positieve feedback waarbij 65 what procent van werknemers d N ?"] "
van de technologie ["Q-0107 Who deze technologie aantrekkelijk vond ?"] "
39;blended learning' ["Q-0108 ]
58 ["Q-0109 Organisch afdrukken en bio - printing & nbsp ; & cobotics werden door what r r N N N en 57 procent van ondervraagden verwelkomd ?"] "
58 ["Q-0110 Organisch afdrukken en bio - printing & nbsp ; & cobotics werden door how much r r N N N procent en 57 procent van ondervraagden verwelkomd ?"] "
Slechts 51 procent gaf aan de term 'blended ["Q-0111 ]
om de kloof ["Q-0112 Van alle technologie & euml ; n die de what did werden genoemd was het echter 3d - printing dat want 66 procent gaf aan hiervan positieve verwachtingen te hebben ?"] "
Gezien het diepgaande effect dat 3D-printing naar verwachting zal hebben op de industrie als geheel en met name in de productie- en retailsector vormt het een aanzienlijke geruststelling dat werknemers openstonden voor de mogelijke impact van de technologie wanneer ze zich beter bewust waren van de kenmerken en mogelijkheden.Streef ernaar het bewustzijn te verhogenTechnologische vooruitgang in het onderwijs biedt een andere mogelijkheid om de kloof ["Q-0113 Van alle technologie & euml ; what J was het echter 3d - printing dat de grootste interesse wekte onder werknemers want 66 procent gaf aan hiervan positieve verwachtingen te hebben ?"] "
58 procent en 57 procent van ondervraagden verwelkomd. Van alle technologieën die werden genoemd was het echter ["Q-0114 Van alle technologie & euml ; n die werden genoemd was het echter what 3d - printing dat de grootste interesse wekte onder werknemers w J positieve verwachtingen te hebben ?"] "
en 57 ["Q-0115 Van alle technologie & euml ; n die werden genoemd was het echter 3d - printing dat de grootste interesse wekte onder werknemers want 66 p N gaf aan hiervan what p p N N N ?"] "
Van alle technologieën die werden genoemd was het echter 3D-printing dat de grootste interesse wekte onder werknemers want 66 procent gaf aan hiervan positieve verwachtingen te hebben. Gezien het diepgaande effect dat 3D-printing naar verwachting zal hebben op de industrie als geheel en met name in de productie- en retailsector vormt het een aanzienlijke geruststelling dat werknemers openstonden voor de mogelijke impact van de technologie wanneer ze zich beter bewust waren van de kenmerken en mogelijkheden.Streef ernaar het bewustzijn te verhogenTechnologische vooruitgang in het onderwijs biedt een andere mogelijkheid om de kloof in het bewustzijn te overbruggen en één die ook door werknemers wordt verwelkomd want 68 procent is positief over blended learning 65 procent over onderwijs via samenwerking en 66 proces geeft aan positief te staan tegenover meta-leren. Het streven naar het implementeren van de voordelen van technologie ["Q-0116
Van alle technologieën die werden genoemd was het echter ["Q-0117 Who want 66 procent gaf aan hiervan positieve verwachtingen te hebben ?"] "
66 ["Q-0118 Van alle technologie & euml ; n die werden genoemd was het echter how much 3d - printing dat de grootste interesse wekte onder werknemers want procent gaf aan hiervan positieve verwachtingen te hebben ?"] "
39;blended ["Q-0119 ]
Gezien ["Q-0120 De what 3d - printing naar verwachting zal hebben & nbsp ; op geheel en met name in de productie- en retailsector vormt het een aanzienlijke geruststelling dat werknemers openstonden voor de mogelijke impact van de technologie wanneer ze Zich beter bewust waren van de kenmerken en mogelijkheden ?"] "
Gezien ["Q-0121 Gezien het diepgaande effect dat 3d - printing naar verwachting zal hebben & nbsp ; op de en what industrie als geheel in de productie- en retailsector vormt het een aanzienlijke geruststelling dat werknemers openstonden voor de mogelijke impact van de technologie wanneer ze Zich beter bewust waren van de kenmerken en mogelijkheden ?"] "
Gezien ["Q-0122 Gezien het diepgaande effect dat 3d - printing naar verwachting zal hebben & nbsp ; op de what industrie als geheel en met in de productie- en retailsector vormt het een aanzienlijke geruststelling dat werknemers openstonden voor de mogelijke impact van de technologie wanneer ze Zich beter bewust waren van de kenmerken en mogelijkheden ?"] "
Gezien ["Q-0123 Gezien het diepgaande effect dat 3d - printing naar verwachting zal hebben & nbsp ; op de industrie als geheel what en met name in de productie- en retailsector vormt het een aanzienlijke geruststelling openstonden voor de mogelijke impact van de technologie wanneer ze Zich beter bewust waren van de kenmerken en mogelijkheden ?"] "
Gezien ["Q-0124 Who geheel en met name in de productie- en retailsector vormt het een aanzienlijke geruststelling dat werknemers openstonden voor de mogelijke impact van de technologie wanneer ze Zich beter bewust waren van de kenmerken en mogelijkheden ?"] "
Gezien het diepgaande ["Q-0125 Who met name in de productie- en retailsector vormt het een aanzienlijke geruststelling dat werknemers openstonden voor de mogelijke impact van de technologie wanneer ze Zich beter bewust waren van de kenmerken en mogelijkheden ?"] "
Technologisch bewustzijn in Europa weten we wel voldoende van de technologie die onze toekomst zal vormgeven? De vooruitgang in moderne technologie vindt met zeer grote vaart plaats. Maar de opkomst van nieuwe mogelijkheden en technologieën zou ook heel goed kunnen leiden tot een soort technologie-moeheid. Het zijn niet alleen consumenten die te lijden hebben onder deze stortvloed aan technologische innovatie. Technologie vormt al een kernonderdeel van de moderne werkplek van geavanceerde printers tot de supercomputers die we in onze broekzak meedragen. Maar de vraag is kunnen we het allemaal wel bijhouden al die technologische innovaties? Advances in modern technology are occurring at a lightning speed. Yet the emergence of new capabilities and disruptive technologies could well be creating a landscape of tech-fatigue. It\u2019s not simply consumers who are suffering from this tidal wave of technological innovation. Technology is already a core part of the modern workplace fr , samenwerking " ["Q-0127 Streef ernaar het bewustzijn te verhogentechnologische vooruitgang in het onderwijs biedt een andere mogelijkheid om de kloof in het bewustzijn te overbruggen en & eacute ; & eacute ; n die ook door werknemers wordt verwelkomd want 68 procent is via what did positief over blended 65 procent over onderwijs en 66 proces geeft aan positief te staan tegenover meta - leren ?"] "
Streef ernaar het bewustzijn te verhogenTechnologische vooruitgang in het onderwijs biedt een andere mogelijkheid om de kloof in het bewustzijn te overbruggen en één die ook door werknemers wordt verwelkomd ["Q-0128 Streef ernaar het bewustzijn te verhogentechnologische vooruitgang in het onderwijs biedt een andere mogelijkheid om de kloof in het bewustzijn te overbruggen en & eacute ; & eacute ; n die ook door werknemers wordt verwelkomd want 68 procent is positief over blended learning 65 procent over onderwijs via samenwerking en 66 proces geeft aan positief te staan ?"] "
Streef ernaar het bewustzijn te verhogenTechnologische vooruitgang in het onderwijs biedt een andere mogelijkheid om de kloof in het bewustzijn te overbruggen en één die ["Q-0129 Streef ernaar het bewustzijn te verhogentechnologische vooruitgang in het onderwijs biedt een andere mogelijkheid om de kloof in het bewustzijn te overbruggen en & eacute ; & eacute ; what J wordt verwelkomd want 68 procent is positief over blended learning 65 procent over onderwijs via samenwerking en 66 proces geeft aan positief te staan tegenover meta - leren ?"] "
ook ["Q-0130 Streef ernaar het bewustzijn te verhogentechnologische vooruitgang in het onderwijs biedt een andere mogelijkheid om de kloof in het bewustzijn te overbruggen en & eacute ; & eacute ; n die what ook door werknemers w N want 68 procent is positief over blended learning 65 procent over onderwijs via samenwerking en 66 proces geeft aan positief te staan tegenover meta - leren ?"] "
ook ["Q-0131 Streef ernaar het bewustzijn te verhogentechnologische vooruitgang in het onderwijs biedt een andere mogelijkheid om de kloof in het bewustzijn te overbruggen en & eacute ; & eacute ; n die what ook door werknemers wordt verwelkomd w J is positief over blended learning 65 procent over onderwijs via samenwerking en 66 proces geeft aan positief te staan tegenover meta - leren ?"] "
Streef ernaar het bewustzijn te verhogenTechnologische vooruitgang in het onderwijs biedt een andere mogelijkheid om de kloof in het bewustzijn te overbruggen en één die ook door werknemers wordt verwelkomd ["Q-0132 Streef ernaar het bewustzijn te verhogentechnologische vooruitgang in het onderwijs biedt een andere mogelijkheid om de kloof in het bewustzijn te overbruggen en & eacute ; & eacute ; n die ook door werknemers wordt verwelkomd want 68 what is procent positief over blended learning over onderwijs via samenwerking en 66 proces geeft aan positief te staan tegenover meta - leren ?"] "
onderwijs ["Q-0133 Streef ernaar het bewustzijn te verhogentechnologische vooruitgang in het onderwijs biedt een andere mogelijkheid om de kloof in het bewustzijn te overbruggen en & eacute ; & eacute ; n die ook door werknemers wordt verwelkomd want 68 procent is positief over blended learning 65 procent over what onderwijs via samenwerking samenwerking en 66 proces g N tegenover meta - leren ?"] "
een ["Q-0134 Who wordt verwelkomd want 68 procent is positief over blended learning 65 procent over onderwijs via samenwerking en 66 proces geeft aan positief te staan tegenover meta - leren ?"] "
Streef ernaar het bewustzijn te verhogenTechnologische vooruitgang in het onderwijs biedt een andere mogelijkheid om de kloof ["Q-0135 Who want 68 procent is positief over blended learning 65 procent over onderwijs via samenwerking en 66 proces geeft aan positief te staan tegenover meta - leren ?"] "
een ["Q-0136 Who is positief over blended learning 65 procent over onderwijs via samenwerking en 66 proces geeft aan positief te staan tegenover meta - leren ?"] "
Streef ernaar het bewustzijn te verhogenTechnologische vooruitgang in het onderwijs biedt een andere mogelijkheid om de kloof ["Q-0137 Who blended bewustzijn 65 procent over onderwijs via samenwerking en 66 proces geeft aan positief te staan tegenover meta - leren ?"] "
Streef ernaar ["Q-0138 Who samenwerking en 66 proces geeft aan positief te staan tegenover meta - leren ?"] "
een andere mogelijkheid om de kloof ["Q-0139 Who geeft aan positief te staan tegenover meta - leren ?"] "
39;blended ["Q-0140 ]
Streef ernaar het bewustzijn te verhogenTechnologische vooruitgang in het onderwijs biedt een andere mogelijkheid om de kloof in het bewustzijn te overbruggen en één die ook door werknemers wordt verwelkomd want 68 procent is positief over blended learning 65 procent over onderwijs via samenwerking en 66 proces geeft aan positief te staan tegenover meta-leren. Het streven naar het implementeren van de voordelen van technologie in de industrie als geheel is belangrijk maar we moeten even hard werken aan het optimaliseren van de geboden mogelijkheden. Hier spelen organisaties een cruciale rol. Momenteel is slechts 14 procent van werknemers van mening dat hun organisatie het 'uitstekend' ["Q-0141 What Het streven n J de voordelen van technologie in de industrie als geheel is belangrijk maar you moeten even hard werken aan het optimaliseren van de geboden"
Streef ernaar het bewustzijn te verhogenTechnologische vooruitgang in het onderwijs biedt een andere mogelijkheid om de kloof in het bewustzijn te overbruggen en één die ook door werknemers wordt verwelkomd want 68 procent is positief over blended learning 65 procent over onderwijs via samenwerking en 66 proces geeft aan positief te staan tegenover meta-leren. Het streven naar het implementeren van de voordelen van technologie in de industrie als geheel is belangrijk maar we moeten even hard werken aan het optimaliseren van de geboden mogelijkheden. Hier spelen organisaties een cruciale rol. Momenteel is slechts 14 procent van werknemers van mening dat hun organisatie het 'uitstekend' ["Q-0142 Het streven naar het implementeren van de voordelen van technologie in de industrie what als g N moeten even hard werken aan het optimaliseren van de geboden moge
ze ["Q-0143 Het streven naar het implementeren van de voordelen van technologie in de industrie als geheel is what belangrijk maar you m r optimaliseren van de geboden mogelijkheden ?"] "
ze ["Q-0144 Who streven naar het implementeren van de voordelen van technologie in de industrie als geheel is belangrijk maar you moeten even hard werken aan het optimaliseren van de geboden mogelijkheden ?"] "
van technologie in de industrie als geheel ["Q-0145 Who is belangrijk maar you moeten even hard werken aan het optimaliseren van de geboden mogelijkheden ?"] "
van technologie ["Q-0146 Who moeten even hard werken aan het optimaliseren van de geboden mogelijkheden ?"] "
39;blended ["Q-0147 ]
van de technologie die onze toekomst zal vormgeven? De vooruitgang in moderne technologie vindt met zeer grote vaart plaats. Maar de opkomst van nieuwe mogelijkheden en technologieën zou ook heel goed kunnen leiden tot een soort technologie-moeheid. Het zijn niet alleen consumenten die te lijden hebben onder deze stortvloed aan technologische innovatie. Technologie vormt al een kernonderdeel van de moderne werkplek van geavanceerde printers tot de supercomputers die we in onze broekzak meedragen. Maar de vraag is kunnen we het allemaal wel bijhouden al die technologische innovaties? Advances in modern technology are occurring at a lightning speed. Yet the emergence of new capabilities and disruptive technologies could well be creating a landscape of tech-fatigue. It\u2019s not simply consumers who are suffering from this tidal wave of technological innovation. Technology is already a core part of the modern workplace from state-of-the-art printers to the super computers we car , van de technologie " ["Q-0149 Who een cruciale rol ?"] "
Technologisch bewustzijn in Europa weten we wel voldoende van de technologie die onze toekomst zal vormgeven? De vooruitgang in moderne technologie vindt met zeer grote vaart plaats. Maar de opkomst van nieuwe mogelijkheden en technologieën zou ook heel goed kunnen leiden tot een soort technologie-moeheid. Het zijn niet alleen consumenten die te lijden hebben onder deze stortvloed aan technologische innovatie. Technologie vormt al een kernonderdeel van de moderne werkplek van geavanceerde printers tot de supercomputers die we in onze broekzak meedragen. Maar de vraag is kunnen we het allemaal wel bijhouden al die technologische innovaties? Advances in modern technology are occurring at a lightning speed. Yet the emergence of new capabilities and disruptive technologies could well be creating a landscape of tech-fatigue. It\u2019s not simply consumers who are suffering from this tidal wave of technological innovation. Technology is already a core part of the modern workplace fr , Momenteel is slechts 14 procent van werknemers van mening dat hun organisatie het 'uitstekend' " ["Q-0151 Momenteel is slechts 14 organisatie what van procent van werknemers mening dat hun & # 39 ; uitstekend & # 39 ; doet op het gebied van het bijhouden van de nieuwste technologische ontwikkelingen ?"] "
Momenteel is slechts 14 procent van werknemers van mening dat hun organisatie het 'uitstekend' ["Q-0152 Momenteel is slechts 14 op what van procent van werknemers mening dat hun organisatie het & # 39 ; uitstekend & # 39 ; doet van het bijhouden van de nieuwste technologische ontwikkelingen ?"] "
Momenteel ["Q-0153 What is Momenteel procent van werknemers van mening dat hun organisatie het & # 39 ; uitstekend & # 39 ; doet op het gebied van het bijhouden van de nieuwste technologische ontwikkelingen ?"] "
dat hun ["Q-0154 Momenteel is slechts 14 what procent van werknemers v N Organisatie Het & # 39 ; uitstekend & # 39 ; doet op het gebied van het bijhouden van de nieuwste technologische ontwikkelingen ?"] "
39;uitstekend' ["Q-0155 Momenteel is slechts 14 procent van werknemers van mening dat hun organisatie het & # 39 ; uitstekend & # 39 ; what op doet het gebied bijhouden van de nieuwste technologische ontwikkelingen ?"] "
Momenteel ["Q-0156 Who is slechts 14 procent van werknemers van mening dat hun organisatie het & # 39 ; uitstekend & # 39 ; doet op het gebied van het bijhouden van de nieuwste technologische ontwikkelingen ?"] "
Momenteel ["Q-0157 Who van mening dat hun organisatie het & # 39 ; uitstekend & # 39 ; doet op het gebied van het bijhouden van de nieuwste technologische ontwikkelingen ?"] "
doet ["Q-0158 Who op het gebied van het bijhouden van de nieuwste technologische ontwikkelingen ?"] "
39;blended ["Q-0159 ]
van technologie ["Q-0160 Als organisaties niet streven naar dieper inzicht in deze veranderende technologische context is het nauwelijks voor te stellen via what dat werknemers deze veranderingen kunnen bijbenen ?"] "
van technologie ["Q-0161 Als organisaties niet streven naar what is dieper inzicht in deze veranderende technologische context dat werknemers deze veranderingen via grotere kennis kunnen bijbenen ?"] "
van technologie ["Q-0162 Als organisaties niet streven naar dieper inzicht in deze veranderende technologische context is het nauwelijks voor te stellen what dat werknemers d N via grotere kennis kunnen bijbenen ?"] "
van technologie ["Q-0163 Als organisaties niet streven naar dieper inzicht in deze veranderende technologische context is het nauwelijks voor te stellen dat werknemers deze veranderingen via what N ?"] "
Als organisaties niet streven naar dieper inzicht in deze veranderende technologische context ["Q-0164 Who is het nauwelijks voor te stellen dat werknemers deze veranderingen via grotere kennis kunnen bijbenen ?"] "
van de technologie ["Q-0165 Who deze veranderingen via grotere kennis kunnen bijbenen ?"] "
van de technologie ["Q-0166 Who grotere kennis organisaties bijbenen ?"] "
Slechts 51 procent gaf aan de term 'blended ["Q-0167 ]
een ["Q-0168 Uiteindelijk leidt via what technologie als alleenstaand fenomeen niet tot succes dit wordt behaald de geboden mogelijkheden ?"] "
Uiteindelijk leidt technologie als ["Q-0169 Uiteindelijk what l l N N N alleenstaand fenomeen niet tot succes dit wordt behaald via een geslaagde implementatie van de geboden mogelijkheden ?"] "
als alleenstaand ["Q-0170 Uiteindelijk leidt technologie what a N via een geslaagde implementatie van de geboden mogelijkheden ?"] "
Uiteindelijk leidt technologie als ["Q-0171 Who alleenstaand fenomeen niet tot succes dit wordt behaald via een geslaagde implementatie van de geboden mogelijkheden ?"] "
39;blended ["Q-0172 ]
Gezien het diepgaande effect dat 3D-printing naar verwachting zal hebben op de industrie als geheel en met name in de productie- en retailsector vormt het een aanzienlijke geruststelling dat werknemers openstonden voor de mogelijke impact van de technologie wanneer ze zich beter bewust waren van de kenmerken en mogelijkheden.Streef ernaar het bewustzijn te verhogenTechnologische vooruitgang in het onderwijs biedt een andere mogelijkheid om de kloof in het bewustzijn te overbruggen en één die ook door werknemers wordt verwelkomd want 68 procent is positief over blended learning 65 procent over onderwijs via samenwerking en 66 proces geeft aan positief te staan tegenover meta-leren. Het streven naar het implementeren van de voordelen van technologie in de industrie als geheel is belangrijk maar we moeten even hard werken aan het optimaliseren van de geboden mogelijkheden. Hier spelen organisaties een cruciale rol. Momenteel is slechts 14 procent van werknemers van , Als we ooit willen profiteren van een revolutie " ["Q-0174 Als you ooit what N in De technologie voor de werkplek moeten you als eerste stap het bewustzijn erover in de industrie als geheel verhogen ?"] "
het bewustzijn erover ["Q-0175 Als you ooit willen profiteren van een revolutie in de technologie voor de werkplek moeten what you als e N in De industrie als geheel verhogen ?"] "
Streef ernaar het bewustzijn te verhogenTechnologische vooruitgang in het onderwijs biedt een andere mogelijkheid om de kloof in het bewustzijn te overbruggen en één die ook door werknemers wordt verwelkomd want 68 procent is positief over blended learning 65 procent over onderwijs via samenwerking en 66 proces geeft aan positief te staan tegenover meta-leren. Het streven naar het implementeren van de voordelen van technologie in de industrie als geheel is belangrijk maar we moeten even hard werken aan het optimaliseren van de geboden mogelijkheden. Hier spelen organisaties een cruciale rol. Momenteel is slechts 14 procent van werknemers van mening dat hun organisatie het 'uitstekend' ["Q-0176 Als you ooit willen profiteren van een revolutie in de technologie voor de werkplek moeten you als eerste stap het bewustzijn erover in de industrie what als g"
Als ["Q-0177 Who ooit willen profiteren van een revolutie in de technologie voor de werkplek moeten you als eerste stap het bewustzijn erover in de industrie als geheel verhogen ?"] "
van een ["Q-0178 Who eerste stap het bewustzijn erover in de industrie als geheel verhogen ?"] "
van de technologie ["Q-0179 Who geheel verhogen ?"] "
39;blended learning' te begrijpen (waarbij een combinatie van online en offline hulpmiddelen worden gebruikt voor educatieve doeleinden) en slechts 35 procent verklaarde iets te weten van omni-channel retail (een aanpak van verkoop met meerdere kanalen waarbij een consistente online en offline ervaring wordt geboden).Een groeiend bewustzijn leidt tot een positieve houdingHet gebrek aan bewustzijn leidt tot problemen bij de adoptie van nieuwe technologie maar kunnen we de interesse verhogen door kennis te vergroten? Als onderdeel van het onderzoek gaven we een toelichting op verschillende nieuwe technologieën aan Europese werknemers. Het bleek dat een groter inzicht leidt tot een veel positievere mening. Over de potentiële integratie van de verschillende technologieën op de werkplek werd met meer kennis dan ook veel optimistischer gedacht. Voor wearables bestond een zeer positieve feedback waarbij 65 procent van werknemers deze technologie aantrekkelijk vond. , 39;blended learning' te begrijpen (waarbij een combinatie van online en offline hulpmiddelen worden gebruikt voor educatieve doeleinden) en slechts 35 procent verklaarde iets te weten van omni-channel retail (een aanpak van verkoop met meerdere kanalen waarbij een consistente online en offline ervaring wordt geboden).Een groeiend bewustzijn leidt tot een positieve houdingHet gebrek aan bewustzijn leidt tot problemen bij de adoptie van nieuwe technologie maar kunnen we de interesse verhogen door kennis te vergroten? Als onderdeel van het onderzoek gaven we een toelichting op verschillende nieuwe technologieën aan Europese werknemers. Het bleek dat een groter inzicht leidt tot een veel positievere mening. Over de potentiële integratie van de verschillende technologieën op de werkplek werd met meer kennis dan ook veel optimistischer gedacht. Voor wearables bestond een zeer positieve feedback waarbij 65 procent van werknemers deze technologie aantrekkelijk vond.
39;blended learning' te begrijpen (waarbij een combinatie van online en offline hulpmiddelen worden gebruikt voor educatieve doeleinden) en slechts 35 procent verklaarde iets te weten van omni-channel retail (een aanpak van verkoop met meerdere kanalen waarbij een consistente online en offline ervaring wordt geboden).Een groeiend bewustzijn leidt tot een positieve houdingHet gebrek aan bewustzijn leidt tot problemen bij de adoptie van nieuwe technologie maar kunnen we de interesse verhogen door kennis te vergroten? Als onderdeel van het onderzoek gaven we een toelichting op verschillende nieuwe technologieën aan Europese werknemers. Het bleek dat een groter inzicht leidt tot een veel positievere mening. Over de potentiële integratie van de verschillende technologieën op de werkplek werd met meer kennis dan ook veel optimistischer gedacht. Voor wearables bestond een zeer positieve feedback waarbij 65 procent van werknemers deze technologie aantrekkelijk vond. , now been disputed " ["Q-01 What does Google and Ibm Fight on Quantum Supremacy Google and Ibm Fight on Quantum Supremacyprabir Purkayasthagoogle \u2019 S quantum supremacy claim has by its close competitor Ibm ?"] "
Google and IBM Fight on Quantum Supremacy Google and IBM Fight on Quantum SupremacyPrabir PurkayasthaGOOGLE\u2019S quantum supremacy ["Q-02 Who has now been disputed by its close competitor Ibm ?"] "
Google and IBM Fight on Quantum Supremacy Google and IBM Fight on Quantum SupremacyPrabir PurkayasthaGOOGLE\u2019S quantum supremacy ["Q-03 Who been disputed by its close competitor Ibm ?"] "
Sycamore quantum computer\u2019s calculations ["Q-04 Who are wrong but because Google had underestimated what Ibm \u2019 s Summit the most powerful super computer in the world could do ?"] "
Google ["Q-05 Who had underestimated what Ibm \u2019 s Summit the most powerful super computer in the world could do ?"] "
IBM\u2019s Summit the most powerful super computer ["Q-06 Who could do ?"] "
Google ["Q-07 Who are official now and can be examined in the way any new science claim should be examined sceptically until all the doubts are answered ?"] "
Google ["Q-08 Who can be examined in the way any new science claim should be examined sceptically until all the doubts are answered ?"] "
any new science claim ["Q-09 Who should be examined sceptically until all the doubts are answered ?"] "
Google\u2019s Sycamore quantum computer\u2019s calculations are wrong but because Google had underestimated what IBM\u2019s Summit the most powerful super computer in the world could do. Meanwhile Google\u2019s paper which had accidentally been leaked by a NASA researcher has now been published in the prestigious science journal Nature. So Google\u2019s claims are official now and can be examined in the way any new science claim should be examined sceptically until all the doubts ["Q-10 Who are answered ?"] "
earlier covered ["Q-11 What do you have what is quantum computing in these columns and will move on to the key issue of quantum supremacy and what it really means ?"] "
quantum computing ["Q-12 What do you have earlier covered what is in these columns and will move on to the key issue of quantum supremacy and what it really means ?"] "
70 ["Q-13 How much s N \u2019 ?"] "
IBM\u2019s paper published ["Q-14 What J around the same time as Google \u2019 s Nature paper showed t you Google was wrong in claiming t you Ibm \u2019 s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google \u2019 s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 s N ?"] "
Summit ["Q-15 Where did Ibm showed with clever programming and using its huge disk space could actually solve the problem in only 2 ?"] "
IBM ["Q-16 Who showed that Summit with clever programming and using its huge disk space could actually solve the problem in only 2 ?"] "
IBM ["Q-17 Who using its huge disk space could actually solve the problem in only 2 ?"] "
Quantum computers ["Q-18 Who could actually solve the problem in only 2 ?"] "
Yes Sycamore ["Q-19 Who still beat Summit on this specific problem by solving it 1100 times faster and not 157 million times faster as Google had claimed ?"] "
Yes Sycamore ["Q-20 Who solving it 1100 times faster and not 157 million times faster as Google had claimed ?"] "
Google ["Q-21 Who had claimed ?"] "
Sycamore ["Q-22 Where but according according does not establish quantum supremacy as that requires solving a problem a conventional computer can not solve in a reasonable amount o you time ?"] "
Google ["Q-23 Who according to Ibm this does not establish quantum supremacy as that requires solving a problem a conventional computer can not solve in a reasonable amount o you time ?"] "
IBM ["Q-24 Who does not establish quantum supremacy as that requires solving a problem a conventional computer can not solve in a reasonable amount o you time ?"] "
IBM ["Q-25 Who requires solving a problem a conventional computer can not solve in a reasonable amount o you time ?"] "
conventional computer ["Q-26 Who can not solve in a reasonable amount o you time ?"] "
Two and a half days ["Q-27 Who is reasonable therefore \u2013 according to Ibm \u2013 quantum supremacy is yet to be attained ?"] "
IBM \u2013 quantum supremacy ["Q-28 Who is yet to be attained ?"] "
17-qubit increase of Sycamore needs Summit to increase thousands of times ["Q-29 Where is the key issue not had a special way to solve the specific quantum problem Google had chosen but that Summit can not scale if Google \u2019 s Sycamore goes from 53 to 60 qubits Ibm will require 33 summits ; if to 70 qubits a super computer the size of a city ! why does summit have to increase at this rate to match Sycamore \u2019 s extra qubits ? for the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits ?"] "
The key issue ["Q-30 Who is not that Summit had a special way to solve the specific quantum problem Google had chosen but that Summit can not scale if Google \u2019 s Sycamore goes from 53 to 60 qubits Ibm will require 33 summits ; if to 70 qubits a super computer the size of a city ! why does summit have to increase at this rate to match Sycamore \u2019 s extra qubits ? for the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits ?"] "
17-qubit increase of Sycamore needs Summit to increase thousands of times ["Q-31 Who had a special way to solve the specific quantum problem Google had chosen but that Summit can not scale if Google \u2019 s Sycamore goes from 53 to 60 qubits Ibm will require 33 summits ; if to 70 qubits a super computer the size of a city ! why does summit have to increase at this rate to match Sycamore \u2019 s extra qubits ? for the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits ?"] "
quantum problem ["Q-32 Who had chosen but that Summit can not scale if Google \u2019 s Sycamore goes from 53 to 60 qubits Ibm will require 33 summits ; if to 70 qubits a super computer the size of a city ! why does summit have to increase at this rate to match Sycamore \u2019 s extra qubits ? for the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits ?"] "
thousands of times ["Q-33 Who can not scale if Google \u2019 s Sycamore goes from 53 to 60 qubits Ibm will require 33 summits ; if to 70 qubits a super computer the size of a city ! why does summit have to increase at this rate to match Sycamore \u2019 s extra qubits ? for the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits ?"] "
if Google\u2019s Sycamore ["Q-34 Who goes from 53 to 60 qubits Ibm will require 33 summits ; if to 70 qubits a super computer the size of a city ! why does summit have to increase at this rate to match Sycamore \u2019 s extra qubits ? for the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits ?"] "
53 to 60 qubits IBM ["Q-35 Who will require 33 summits ; if to 70 qubits a super computer the size of a city ! why does summit have to increase at this rate to match Sycamore \u2019 s extra qubits ? for the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits ?"] "
Summit ["Q-36 Who have to increase at this rate to match Sycamore \u2019 s extra qubits ? for the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits ?"] "
quantum supremacy Google ["Q-37 Who chose the simulation of quantum circuits ?"] "
classical computers solution time for a certain class ["Q-38 What the resources \u2013 disk space memory computing computing requited to solve this problem in reasonable time by classical computers increases exponentially with size of the problem ?"] "
requited ["Q-39 What the resources \u2013 disk space memory computing power \u2013 computing to solve in reasonable time by classical computers increases exponentially with size of the problem ?"] "
disk space memory ["Q-40 Who computing time by classical computers increases to solve this problem in reasonable time by classical computers increases exponentially with size of the problem ?"] "
quantum computers ["Q-41 Who adding adding more qubits \u2013 increases simply adding more qubits \u2013 increases its computing capacity exponentially ?"] "
quantum computers ["Q-42 Who \u2013 adding its computing capacity exponentially ?"] "
between Summit ["Q-43 Where is this the key difference and Sycamore ?"] "
17-qubit increase of Sycamore ["Q-44 What is this between Summit and Sycamore ?"] "
increase of Sycamore needs Summit to increase thousands of times ["Q-45 Who is the key difference between Summit and Sycamore ?"] "
extra qubit a conventional computer ["Q-46 Who will have to scale its resources exponentially and this is a losing game for the conventional computer ?"] "
Google the \u201cvictory\u201d here not because IBM ["Q-47 Who is a losing game for the conventional computer ?"] "
the principle of quantum supremacy ["Q-48 Who have to give Google the \u201c victory \u201d here not because Ibm is wrong but the principle of quantum supremacy that a quantum computer can really beat a conventional computer in computing a certain class of problems in reasonable time has been established ?"] "
IBM ["Q-49 Who is wrong but the principle of quantum supremacy that a quantum computer can really beat a conventional computer in computing a certain class of problems in reasonable time has been established ?"] "
quantum computer ["Q-50 Who can really beat a conventional computer in computing a certain class of problems in reasonable time has been established ?"] "
Quantum computers ["Q-51 Who computing a certain class of problems in reasonable time has been established ?"] "
IBM. Not because Google\u2019s Sycamore quantum computer\u2019s calculations are wrong but because Google had underestimated what IBM\u2019s Summit the most powerful super computer in the world could do. Meanwhile Google\u2019s paper which had accidentally been leaked by a NASA researcher ["Q-52 Who has been established ?"] "
actual demonstration ["Q-53 Who is only of academic value ?"] "
If a 53 qubit ["Q-54 Who can solve the problem but with Ibm \u2019 s Summit still in the race even if much slower it is only a matter of time before you see it truly beaten ?"] "
IBM\u2019s Summit ["Q-55 Who is only a matter of time before you see it truly beaten ?"] "
IBM\u2019s Summit ["Q-56 Who see it truly beaten ?"] "
IBM\u2019s Summit ["Q-57 Who truly beaten ?"] "
IBM\u2019s Summit still in the race even if much slower it is only a matter of time before we see it truly beaten.Of course there are other ways that this particular test ["Q-58 Who could fail ?"] "
IBM\u2019s Summit ["Q-59 What can a new algorithm be discovered which solves this problem faster starting a fresh race ?"] "
IBM\u2019s Summit ["Q-60 What can a new algorithm be discovered which s N faster starting a fresh race ?"] "
A new algorithm ["Q-61 Who can be discovered which solves this problem faster starting a fresh race ?"] "
IBM ["Q-62 Who faster starting a fresh race ?"] "
missing the big picture ["Q-63 What is but the principle specific race but the way quantum computing will scale in solving a certain class of problems that classical or conventional computers can \u2019 t ?"] "
the principle ["Q-64 Who is not a specific race but the way quantum computing will scale in solving a certain class of problems that classical or conventional computers can \u2019 t ?"] "
quantum computing ["Q-65 Who computing will scale in solving a certain class of problems that classical or conventional computers can \u2019 t ?"] "
quantum computing ["Q-66 Who solving a certain class of problems that classical or conventional computers can \u2019 t ?"] "
IBM ["Q-67 Who can \u2019 t ?"] "
quantum supremacy ["Q-68 What the key issue in creating creating should not be confused with a race between classical computers and the new kid on the block the quantum computers ?"] "
The key issue ["Q-69 Who creating viable quantum computers should not be confused with a race between classical computers and the new kid on the block the quantum computers ?"] "
viable quantum computers ["Q-70 Who should not be confused with a race between classical computers and the new kid on the block the quantum computers ?"] "
race ["Q-71 What do if you see as between two classes of computers in solving a specific problem you are missing the big picture ?"] "
IBM ["Q-72 Who see the race as between two classes of computers in solving a specific problem you are missing the big picture ?"] "
two classes of computers ["Q-73 Who solving a specific problem you are missing the big picture ?"] "
between two classes of computers ["Q-74 Who are missing the big picture ?"] "
IBM\u2019s Summit still in the race even if much slower it is only a matter of time before we see it truly beaten.Of course there are other ways that this particular test could fail. A new algorithm can be discovered which solves this problem faster starting a fresh race. But the principle is not a specific race but the way quantum computing will scale in solving a certain class of problems that classical or conventional computers can\u2019t.The key issue in creating viable quantum computers should not be confused with a race between classical computers and the new kid on the block the quantum computers. If we see the race as between two classes of computers in solving a specific problem we are missing the big picture ["Q-75 Who is simply that for classical computers solution time for a certain class of problems increases exponentially with the size of the problem and beyond a"
a certain size we just can\u2019t solve them in any reasonable time. Quantum computers have the potential for solving such problems in a reasonable time therefore opening the door for computing such problems.Are there such problems and will they yield worthwhile technological applications? The first problem chosen computing the future states of quantum circuits were not chosen for any practical application. It was simply chosen to showcase quantum supremacy defined as a quantum computer solving a problem that a classical computer ["Q-76 Who just can \u2019 t solve them in any reasonable time ?"] "
potential ["Q-77 What do quantum computers have for solving such problems in a reasonable time therefore opening the door for computing such problems ?"] "
Quantum computers ["Q-78 Who will they yield worthwhile technological applications ? the first problem chosen computing the future states of quantum circuits were not chosen for any practical application ?"] "
problems ["Q-79 Who yield worthwhile technological applications ? the first problem chosen computing the future states of quantum circuits were not chosen for any practical application ?"] "
The first problem ["Q-80 Who computing the future states of quantum circuits were not chosen for any practical application ?"] "
computing the future states of quantum circuits ["Q-81 Who were not chosen for any practical application ?"] "
The first problem chosen computing the future states of quantum circuits ["Q-82 What did it was to showcase quantum supremacy defined as a quantum computer solving a problem that a classical computer can not solve in reasonable time ?"] "
quantum supremacy ["Q-83 What did it was simply chosen to s N defined as a quantum computer solving a problem that a classical computer can not solve in reasonable time ?"] "
quantum circuits ["Q-84 Who was simply chosen to showcase quantum supremacy defined as a quantum computer solving a problem that a classical computer can not solve in reasonable time ?"] "
quantum supremacy ["Q-85 Who defined as a quantum computer solving a problem that a classical computer can not solve in reasonable time ?"] "
quantum computer ["Q-86 Who solving a problem that a classical computer can not solve in reasonable time ?"] "
conventional computer ["Q-87 Who can not solve in reasonable time ?"] "
Jianwei Pan ["Q-88 Who led that shows another p N a paper that shows another problem a Boson Sampling experiment with 20 photons can also be a pathway to show quantum supremacy ?"] "
Boson Sampling ["Q-89 Who can also be a pathway to show quantum supremacy ?"] "
quantum supremacy ["Q-90 What are these problems constructed not for showing real world applications but simply that quantum computing works can potentially solve real world problems ?"] "
Democracy newsletter ["Q-91 What did provided you provided ?"] "
Feynman ["Q-92 Who provided the r N the right problem ?"] "
right problem.The question is what are the class of problems that can use quantum computers?The first class of problems are the ones for which Feynman had postulated the quantum computers a simulation of the quantum world. Why do we need such simulations as after all we live in the macro-world in which quantum effects are not visible to us? The right word is visible to us but they are all around us in different ways ["Q-93 What is the question what are of problems that can use quantum computers ? the first class of problems are the ones for which Feynman had postulated the quantum computers a simulation of the quantum world ?"] "
quantum computers?The ["Q-94 What is the question what are the class of problems that can use ? the first class of problems are the ones for which Feynman had postulated the quantum computers a simulation of the quantum world ?"] "
right problem ["Q-95 Who is what are the class of problems that can use quantum computers ? the first class of problems are the ones for which Feynman had postulated the quantum computers a simulation of the quantum world ?"] "
first class of problems ["Q-96 Who are the ones for which Feynman had postulated the quantum computers a simulation of the quantum world ?"] "
Feynman ["Q-97 Who had postulated the quantum computers a simulation of the quantum world ?"] "
The right word ["Q-98 Why do you need such simulations as after all you live in the macro - world in which to whom are quantum effects not visible ? the right word is visible to us but they are all around us in different ways ?"] "
The right word ["Q-99 Why do you need such simulations as after all you live in the macro - world in which quantum effects are not visible to us ? to whom is the right word visible but they are all around us in different ways ?"] "
The right word ["Q-100 Why do as what you need such simulations live in the macro - world in which quantum effects are not visible to us ? the right word is visible to us but they are all around us in different ways ?"] "
macro-world ["Q-101 Why do you need such simulations as after all you live in which quantum effects are not visible to us ? the right word is visible to us but they are all around us in different ways ?"] "
class of problems ["Q-102 Why do you need such simulations as after all you live in the macro - world in which quantum effects are not visible to us ? the right word is visible to around whom are us but they all in different ways ?"] "
different ways ["Q-103 Why do you need such simulations as after all you live in the macro - world in which quantum effects are not visible to us ? the right word is visible to in what are us but they all around us ?"] "
simulations ["Q-104 Why do what you n N as after all you live in the macro - world in which quantum effects are not visible to us ? the right word is visible to us but they are all around us in different ways ?"] "
The right word ["Q-105 Why do you need such simulations as after all you live in the macro - world in which quantum effects are not visible to us ? the right word is visible to what are us but they around us in different ways ?"] "
we ["Q-106 Who need such simulations as after all you live in the macro - world in which quantum effects are not visible to us ? the right word is visible to us but they are all around us in different ways ?"] "
simulations ["Q-107 Who live in the macro - world in which quantum effects are not visible to us ? the right word is visible to us but they are all around us in different ways ?"] "
quantum effects ["Q-108 Who are not visible to us ? the right word is visible to us but they are all around us in different ways ?"] "
The right word ["Q-109 Who is visible to us but they are all around us in different ways ?"] "
The right word ["Q-110 Who are all around us in different ways ?"] "
The right word is visible to us but they are all around us in different ways.It is now clear using classical computers that we cannot simulate for instance protein folding as it involves the quantum world intersecting the macro-world. A quantum computer could simulate the probability of how many possible ways it could fold ["Q-111 What is it classical computers that you can not simulate for instance protein folding as it involves the quantum world intersecting the macro - world ?"] "
the probability ["Q-112 What could a quantum computer simulate of how many possible ways it could fold ?"] "
A quantum computer ["Q-113 Who could simulate the probability of how many possible ways it could fold ?"] "
A quantum computer ["Q-114 Who could fold ?"] "
fold ["Q-115 What would this allow to build not only new materials but also medicines known as biologics and work out what are their actual medical pathways ?"] "
fold ["Q-116 What would this allow us to b N but also medicines known as biologics and work out what are their actual medical pathways ?"] "
fold ["Q-117 Who would allow us to build not only new materials but also medicines known as biologics and work out what are their actual medical pathways ?"] "
biologics ["Q-118 Who known to build not only n J what are their actual medical pathways ?"] "
complex chemicals ["Q-119 Who could be a field of discovery or new materials with complex molecules ?"] "
IBM Google ["Q-120 Who is gung - ho on the possible use of quantum computers for such applications and that is why they are all investing in it big time ?"] "
IBM Google ["Q-121 Who is why they are all investing in it big time ?"] "
IBM Google ["Q-122 Who are all investing in it big time ?"] "
quantum computers ["Q-123 What but supposing supposing do not lead to any commercial benefits should you then abandon quantum computing ? if it is useful only for simulating quantum mechanics and understanding that world better ? Did you build the Hadron Collider investing 13 ?"] "
IBM Google ["Q-124 Who supposing quantum computers do not lead to any commercial benefits should you then abandon quantum computing ? if it is useful only for simulating quantum mechanics and understanding that world better ? Did you build the Hadron Collider investing 13 ?"] "
supposing quantum computers ["Q-125 Who do not lead to any commercial benefits should you then abandon quantum computing ? if it is useful only for simulating quantum mechanics and understanding that world better ? Did you build the Hadron Collider investing 13 ?"] "
any commercial benefits ["Q-126 Who should you then abandon quantum computing ? if it is useful only for simulating quantum mechanics and understanding that world better ? Did you build the Hadron Collider investing 13 ?"] "
IBM Google \u2013 is gung-ho on the possible use of quantum computers for such applications and that is why they are all investing in it big time. So are nation states notably the US and China.But supposing quantum computers do not lead to any commercial benefits ["Q-127 Who then abandon quantum computing ? if it is useful only for simulating quantum mechanics and understanding that world better ? Did you build the Hadron Collider investing 13 ?"] "
IBM Google ["Q-128 Who computing ? if it is useful only for simulating quantum mechanics and understanding that world better ? Did you build the Hadron Collider investing 13 ?"] "
IBM Google ["Q-129 Who is useful only for simulating quantum mechanics and understanding that world better ? Did you build the Hadron Collider investing 13 ?"] "
quantum computers ["Q-130 Who simulating not lead to any commercial benefits should that world better ? Did you build the Hadron Collider investing 13 ?"] "
IBM Google ["Q-131 Who build the Hadron Collider investing 13 ?"] "
the Hadron Collider ["Q-132 Who investing 13 ?"] "
1 billion dollars ["Q-133 Who thought you will have discoveries that will have commercial value ? or should society invest in knowing the fundamental properties of space and time including that of the quantum world ? even if the quantum computers only give us a window to the quantum world the benefits would be knowledge ?"] "
1 billion dollars ["Q-134 Who will have discoveries that will have commercial value ? or should society invest in knowing the fundamental properties of space and time including that of the quantum world ? even if the quantum computers only give us a window to the quantum world the benefits would be knowledge ?"] "
commercial value ["Q-135 Who should society invest in knowing the fundamental properties of space and time including that of the quantum world ? even if the quantum computers only give us a window to the quantum world the benefits would be knowledge ?"] "
commercial value ["Q-136 Who knowing the fundamental properties of space and time including that of the quantum world ? even if the quantum computers only give us a window to the quantum world the benefits would be knowledge ?"] "
IBM Google \u2013 is gung-ho on the possible use of quantum computers for such applications and that is why they are all investing in it big time. So are nation states notably the US and China ["Q-137 Who including that of the quantum world ? even if the quantum computers only give us a window to the quantum world the benefits would be knowledge ?"] "
quantum computers ["Q-138 Who only give us a window to the quantum world the benefits would be knowledge ?"] "
a window to the quantum world the benefits ["Q-139 Who would be knowledge ?"] "
its close competitor IBM ["Q-01 Google and Ibm Fight on Quantum Supremacy Google and Ibm Fight on Quantum Supremacyprabir Purkayasthagoogle \u2019 S quantum supremacy claim has now by what been been disputed disputed close competitor Ibm ?"] "
now been disputed ["Q-02 What does Google and Ibm Fight on Quantum Supremacy Google and Ibm Fight on Quantum Supremacyprabir Purkayasthagoogle \u2019 S quantum supremacy claim has by its close competitor Ibm ?"] "
Google and IBM Fight on Quantum Supremacy Google and IBM Fight on Quantum SupremacyPrabir PurkayasthaGOOGLE\u2019S quantum supremacy ["Q-03 Who has now been disputed by its close competitor Ibm ?"] "
Google and IBM Fight on Quantum Supremacy Google and IBM Fight on Quantum SupremacyPrabir PurkayasthaGOOGLE\u2019S quantum supremacy ["Q-04 Who been disputed by its close competitor Ibm ?"] "
Hadron Collider investing 13.25 billion dollars ["Q-05 ]
Sycamore quantum ["Q-06 Not because Google \u2019 s where are computer \u2019 s calculations wrong but had underestimated what Ibm \u2019 s Summit the most powerful super computer in the world could do ?"] "
IBM ["Q-07 Not because Google \u2019 s Sycamore quantum computer \u2019 s calculations are wrong but because Google had underestimated what in what Summit the most powerful super computer could do ?"] "
Sycamore quantum computer\u2019s calculations ["Q-08 Not what N are wrong but because Google had underestimated what Ibm \u2019 s Summit the most powerful super computer in the world could do ?"] "
the principle of quantum supremacy ["Q-09 Not because Google \u2019 s Sycamore quantum computer \u2019 s calculations are what had wrong but because Google underestimated what Ibm \u2019 s Summit the most powerful super computer in the world could do ?"] "
IBM\u2019s Summit ["Q-010 Not because Google \u2019 s Sycamore quantum computer \u2019 s calculations are wrong but because Google had underestimated what what j most powerful super computer in the world could do ?"] "
Sycamore quantum computer\u2019s calculations ["Q-011 Who are wrong but because Google had underestimated what Ibm \u2019 s Summit the most powerful super computer in the world could do ?"] "
Google ["Q-012 Who had underestimated what Ibm \u2019 s Summit the most powerful super computer in the world could do ?"] "
IBM\u2019s Summit the most powerful super computer ["Q-013 Who could do ?"] "
13.25 billion dollars ["Q-014 ]
NASA researcher ["Q-015 Meanwhile Google \u2019 s paper which had accidentally where been been leaked leaked has now been published in the prestigious science journal nature ?"] "
science journal Nature ["Q-016 Meanwhile Google \u2019 s paper which had accidentally been leaked by a Nasa researcher has now in what been been published published ?"] "
Google\u2019s paper ["Q-017 Meanwhile what J which had accidentally been leaked by a Nasa researcher has now been published in the prestigious science journal nature ?"] "
Google ["Q-018 Meanwhile what paper which had by a Nasa researcher has now been published in the prestigious science journal nature ?"] "
Sycamore quantum computer\u2019s calculations ["Q-019 Meanwhile Google \u2019 s paper which had accidentally what been been leaked by a Nasa researcher leaked in the prestigious science journal nature ?"] "
Hadron Collider investing 13.25 billion dollars ["Q-020 ]
any new science claim ["Q-021 So Google \u2019 s claims are official now in what can and be examined new science claim should be examined sceptically until all the doubts are answered ?"] "
can be examined in the way any new science claim should be examined sceptically until all the doubts are answered.We have earlier covered what is quantum computing ["Q-022 So Google \u2019 s claims are official now what can and be examined in the way any new science claim should be examined sceptically until all the doubts are answered ?"] "
We have earlier covered what is quantum computing in these columns ["Q-023 So Google \u2019 s claims are official now and can be examined in the way what should any new science claim be examined sceptically until all the doubts are answered ?"] "
the doubts ["Q-024 So Google \u2019 s claims are official now and can be examined in the way any new science claim should be examined sceptically until all what are the doubts answered ?"] "
Google ["Q-025 Who are official now and can be examined in the way any new science claim should be examined sceptically until all the doubts are answered ?"] "
Google ["Q-026 Who can be examined in the way any new science claim should be examined sceptically until all the doubts are answered ?"] "
any new science claim ["Q-027 Who should be examined sceptically until all the doubts are answered ?"] "
Google\u2019s claims are official now and can be examined in the way any new science claim should be examined sceptically until all the doubts ["Q-028 Who are answered ?"] "
17-qubit increase of Sycamore needs Summit to increase thousands of times. This is the key difference between Summit and Sycamore.\u00a0 For each extra qubit a conventional computer will have to scale its resources exponentially and this is a losing game for the conventional computer.Therefore we have to give Google the \u201cvictory\u201d here not because IBM is wrong but the principle of quantum supremacy that a quantum computer can really beat a conventional computer in computing a certain class of problems in reasonable time has been established. The actual demonstration \u2013 a more precise definition of reasonable time and its actual demonstration \u2013 is only of academic value. If a 53 qubit can solve the problem but with IBM\u2019s Summit still in the race even if much slower it is only a matter of time before we see it truly beaten.Of course there are other ways that this particular test could fail. A new algorithm can be discovered which solves this problem faster star , will move on to the key issue " ["Q-030 We have earlier covered what is to what quantum computing in these columns and computing on of quantum supremacy and what it really means ?"] "
columns ["Q-031 In what do you have earlier covered what is quantum computing and will move on to the key issue of quantum supremacy and what it really means ?"] "
quantum supremacy ["Q-032 We have earlier covered what is of what quantum computing in these columns and computing on to the key issue and what it really means ?"] "
earlier covered ["Q-033 What do you have what is quantum computing in these columns and will move on to the key issue of quantum supremacy and what it really means ?"] "
quantum computing ["Q-034 What do you have earlier covered what is in these columns and will move on to the key issue of quantum supremacy and what it really means ?"] "
13.25 billion dollars ["Q-035 ]
70 ["Q-036 How much s N \u2019 ?"] "
IBM\u2019s paper published around the same time as Google\u2019s Nature paper showed that Google was wrong in claiming that IBM\u2019s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google\u2019s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 seconds ["Q-037 Ibm \u2019 s paper published around the same time as Google \u2019 did s Nature paper showed Google was wrong in claiming t you Ibm \u2019 s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google \u2019 s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 s N ?"] "
IBM\u2019s paper published around the same time as Google\u2019s Nature paper showed that Google was wrong in claiming that IBM\u2019s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google\u2019s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 seconds ["Q-038 Ibm \u2019 s paper published around the same time as Google \u2019 s Nature paper showed t you Google was wrong in claiming claiming Ibm \u2019 s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google \u2019 s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 s N ?"] "
IBM\u2019s paper published around the same time as Google\u2019s Nature paper showed that Google was wrong in claiming that IBM\u2019s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google\u2019s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 seconds ["Q-039 Ibm \u2019 s paper published around the same time as Google \u2019 s Nature paper showed t you Google was wrong in claiming t you Ibm \u2019 s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google \u2019 s had Sycamore solved in a mere 200 ?"] "
the same time ["Q-040 Ibm \u2019 s around what did paper published published as Google \u2019 s Nature paper showed that Google was wrong in claiming that Ibm \u2019 s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google \u2019 s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 seconds ?"] "
IBM\u2019s paper published around the same time as Google\u2019s Nature paper showed that Google was wrong in claiming that IBM\u2019s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google\u2019s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 seconds ["Q-041 Ibm \u2019 s where did paper published published around the same time s Nature paper showed that Google was wrong in claiming that Ibm \u2019 s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google \u2019 s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 seconds ?"] "
quantum computing ["Q-042 Ibm \u2019 s paper published around the same time as Google \u2019 where did s Nature paper showed was wrong in claiming that Ibm \u2019 s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google \u2019 s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 seconds ?"] "
claiming ["Q-043 Ibm \u2019 s paper published around the same time as Google \u2019 s Nature paper showed in what did that Google was wrong that Ibm \u2019 s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google \u2019 s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 seconds ?"] "
quantum computer\u2019s calculations ["Q-044 Ibm \u2019 s paper published around the same time as Google \u2019 s Nature paper showed that Google was where wrong in claiming claiming s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google \u2019 s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 seconds ?"] "
200 seconds ["Q-045 Ibm \u2019 s paper published around the same time as Google \u2019 s Nature paper showed that Google was wrong in claiming t you Ibm \u2019 s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google \u2019 s in what had Sycamore solved ?"] "
IBM\u2019s paper published ["Q-046 What J around the same time as Google \u2019 s Nature paper showed t you Google was wrong in claiming t you Ibm \u2019 s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google \u2019 s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 s N ?"] "
IBM\u2019s paper published around the same time as Google\u2019s Nature paper showed that Google was wrong in claiming that IBM\u2019s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google\u2019s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 seconds ["Q-047 Ibm \u2019 s paper published around the same t N as Google \u2019 did s Nature paper showed t N Google was wrong in claiming t you Ibm \u2019 s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google \u2019 s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 s N ?"] "
IBM\u2019s paper published around the same time as Google\u2019s Nature paper showed that Google was wrong in claiming that IBM\u2019s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google\u2019s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 seconds ["Q-048 Ibm \u2019 s paper published around the same t N as Google \u2019 s Nature paper showed t you Google was wrong in claiming t t N N N Ibm \u2019 s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google \u2019 s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 s N ?"] "
10000 years ["Q-049 Ibm \u2019 s paper published around the same time as Google \u2019 s Nature paper showed t you Google was wrong in claiming t you Ibm \u2019 what would s Summit take to solve the problem Google \u2019 s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 s N ?"] "
10000 years to solve the problem Google\u2019s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 seconds ["Q-050 Ibm \u2019 s paper published around the same time as Google \u2019 s Nature paper showed t you Google was wrong in claiming t you Ibm \u2019 what would s Summit take 10000 years to solve s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 s N ?"] "
Google\u2019s Sycamore ["Q-051 Ibm \u2019 s paper published around the same time as Google \u2019 s Nature paper showed t you Google was wrong in claiming t you Ibm \u2019 s Summit would take 10000 years to solve what N had solved in a mere 200 s N ?"] "
IBM\u2019s paper published around the same time as Google\u2019s Nature paper showed that Google was wrong in claiming that IBM\u2019s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google\u2019s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 seconds ["Q-052 Ibm \u2019 s paper published around the same time as Google \u2019 s Nature paper showed t you Google was wrong in claiming t you Ibm \u2019 s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google \u2019 s what had Sycamore solved in a mere 200 s N ?"] "
IBM\u2019s paper published around the same time as Google\u2019s Nature paper showed that Google was wrong in claiming that IBM\u2019s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google\u2019s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 seconds ["Q-053 Ibm \u2019 s paper published around the same time as Google \u2019 s Nature paper showed t you Google was wrong in claiming t you Ibm \u2019 s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google \u2019 s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 s s N N N ?"] "
IBM\u2019s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google\u2019s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 seconds ["Q-054 Ibm \u2019 s paper published around the same time as Google \u2019 s Nature paper showed whose Google was wrong in claiming t you Ibm \u2019 s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google \u2019 s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 s N ?"] "
IBM\u2019s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google\u2019s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 seconds ["Q-055 Ibm \u2019 s paper published around the same time as Google \u2019 s Nature paper showed t you Google was wrong in claiming whose Ibm \u2019 s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google \u2019 s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 s N ?"] "
IBM\u2019s paper published around the same time as Google\u2019s Nature paper showed that Google was wrong in claiming that IBM\u2019s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google\u2019s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 seconds ["Q-056 Ibm \u2019 s paper published around the same time as Google \u2019 s Nature paper showed t you Google was wrong in claiming t you Ibm \u2019 s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google \u2019 s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 whose ?"] "
200 seconds ["Q-057 Ibm \u2019 s paper published around the same time as Google \u2019 t how much did s Nature paper showed Google was wrong in claiming t you Ibm \u2019 s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google \u2019 s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 s N ?"] "
157 million times faster ["Q-058 Ibm \u2019 s paper published around the same time as Google \u2019 s Nature paper showed t you Google was t how much wrong in claiming claiming Ibm \u2019 s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google \u2019 s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 s N ?"] "
200 seconds ["Q-059 Ibm \u2019 s paper published around the same time as Google \u2019 s Nature paper showed t you Google was wrong in claiming t you Ibm \u2019 s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google \u2019 s s how much had Sycamore solved in a mere 200 ?"] "
200 seconds ["Q-060 Ibm \u2019 s paper published around the same t N as Google \u2019 how much did s Nature paper showed t N Google was wrong in claiming t you Ibm \u2019 s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google \u2019 s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 s N ?"] "
IBM\u2019s paper published around the same time as Google\u2019s Nature paper showed that Google was wrong in claiming that IBM\u2019s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google\u2019s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 seconds ["Q-061 Ibm \u2019 s paper published around the same t N as Google \u2019 s Nature paper showed t you Google was wrong in claiming how much t t N N N Ibm \u2019 s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google \u2019 s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 s N ?"] "
10000 ["Q-062 Ibm \u2019 s paper published around the same time as Google \u2019 s Nature paper showed t you Google was wrong in claiming t you Ibm \u2019 how much would s Summit take years to solve the problem Google \u2019 s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 s N ?"] "
IBM\u2019s paper published around the same time as Google\u2019s Nature paper showed that Google was wrong in claiming that IBM\u2019s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google\u2019s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 seconds ["Q-063 Ibm \u2019 s paper published around the same time as Google \u2019 s Nature paper showed t you Google was wrong in claiming t you Ibm \u2019 s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google \u2019 s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 how much s s N N N ?"] "
13.25 billion dollars ["Q-064 ]
Summit ["Q-065 Where did Ibm showed with clever programming and using its huge disk space could actually solve the problem in only 2 ?"] "
clever programming ["Q-066 With what did Ibm showed that Summit and using its huge disk space could actually solve the problem in only 2 ?"] "
Google\u2019s Sycamore ["Q-067 Ibm showed that Summit with clever programming and using its in what huge disk space could actually solve the problem ?"] "
Google\u2019s Sycamore ["Q-068 Ibm showed that Summit with what clever programming and using using huge disk space could actually solve the problem in only 2 ?"] "
Google\u2019s Sycamore ["Q-069 Ibm showed that Summit with clever programming and using its what huge disk space could actually solve in only 2 ?"] "
Google\u2019s Sycamore ["Q-070 Ibm showed that Summit with clever programming and using whose huge disk space could actually solve the problem in only 2 ?"] "
IBM ["Q-071 Who showed that Summit with clever programming and using its huge disk space could actually solve the problem in only 2 ?"] "
IBM ["Q-072 Who using its huge disk space could actually solve the problem in only 2 ?"] "
Quantum computers ["Q-073 Who could actually solve the problem in only 2 ?"] "
13.25 billion dollars ["Q-074 ]
13.25 billion dollars ["Q-075 ]
Sycamore still beat Summit on this specific problem ["Q-076 Yes on what Sycamore still beat Summit by solving it 1100 times faster and not 157 million times faster as Google had claimed ?"] "
Yes Sycamore ["Q-077 Yes by what Sycamore still beat Summit on this specific problem faster and not 157 million times faster as Google had claimed ?"] "
Summit ["Q-078 Yes Sycamore still beat where summit on this specific problem by solving solving it 1100 times faster and not 157 million times faster had claimed ?"] "
beat Summit ["Q-079 Yes what Sycamore still b N on this specific problem by solving it 1100 times faster and not 157 million times faster as Google had claimed ?"] "
IBM ["Q-080 Yes Sycamore still beat whom Summit on this specific problem by solving solving faster and not 157 million times faster as Google had claimed ?"] "
faster ["Q-081 Yes Sycamore still beat Summit on this specific problem by solving it 1100 times faster and not 157 million times faster what had as Google claimed ?"] "
Yes Sycamore ["Q-082 Who still beat Summit on this specific problem by solving it 1100 times faster and not 157 million times faster as Google had claimed ?"] "
Yes Sycamore ["Q-083 Who solving it 1100 times faster and not 157 million times faster as Google had claimed ?"] "
Google ["Q-084 Who had claimed ?"] "
2.5 days.Yes Sycamore still beat Summit on this specific problem by solving it 1100 ["Q-085 Yes Sycamore still beat how much summit on this specific problem by solving solving it times faster and not 157 million times faster as Google had claimed ?"] "
Summit have to increase at this rate to match Sycamore\u2019s extra qubits? For the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits. The resources \u2013 disk space memory computing power \u2013 requited to solve this problem in reasonable time by classical computers increases exponentially with size of the problem. For quantum computers adding qubits linearly \u2013 meaning simply adding more qubits \u2013 increases its computing capacity exponentially. Just extra 7 qubits of Sycamore needs IBM to increase the size of Summit 33 times; 17-qubit increase of Sycamore needs Summit to increase thousands of times. This is the key difference between Summit and Sycamore.\u00a0 For each extra qubit a conventional computer will have to scale its resources exponentially and this is a losing game for the conventional computer.Therefore we have to give Google the \u201cvictory\u201d here not because IBM is wrong but the principle of quantum supremacy that a q , Sycamore " ["Q-087 Where but according according does not establish quantum supremacy as that requires solving a problem a conventional computer can not solve in a reasonable amount o you time ?"] "
Sycamore ["Q-088 But according to Ibm this does not establish quantum supremacy as that requires solving a problem a conventional computer can not solve in a reasonable amount time ?"] "
Sycamore still beat Summit on this specific problem by solving it 1100 times faster and not 157 million times faster as Google had claimed. But according to IBM this does not establish quantum supremacy as that requires solving a problem a conventional computer cannot solve in a reasonable amount of time. Two and a half days ["Q-089 But according to as what does Ibm this does not establish quantum supremacy requires solving a problem a conventional computer can not solve in a reasonable amount of time ?"] "
classical computer ["Q-090 But according to Ibm this does not establish quantum supremacy as that requires solving a problem in what a conventional computer can not solve of time ?"] "
classical computer ["Q-091 But according to Ibm this does not establish quantum supremacy as that requires solving a problem of what a conventional computer can not solve in a reasonable amount ?"] "
quantum supremacy ["Q-092 But according to what does Ibm this does not establish as that requires solving a problem a conventional computer can not solve in a reasonable amount o you time ?"] "
quantum supremacy ["Q-093 But according to Ibm this does not establish quantum what requires supremacy as that solving conventional computer can not solve in a reasonable amount o you time ?"] "
Sycamore ["Q-094 But according to Ibm this does not establish quantum supremacy as that requires solving a problem a conventional computer can not solve in a reasonable amount o o N N N time ?"] "
Two and a half days ["Q-095 But according to Ibm this does not establish quantum supremacy as that requires solving a problem a conventional computer can not solve in a reasonable amount whose time ?"] "
Google ["Q-096 Who according to Ibm this does not establish quantum supremacy as that requires solving a problem a conventional computer can not solve in a reasonable amount o you time ?"] "
IBM ["Q-097 Who does not establish quantum supremacy as that requires solving a problem a conventional computer can not solve in a reasonable amount o you time ?"] "
IBM ["Q-098 Who requires solving a problem a conventional computer can not solve in a reasonable amount o you time ?"] "
conventional computer ["Q-099 Who can not solve in a reasonable amount o you time ?"] "
Two and a half days ["Q-0100 But according to Ibm this does not establish quantum supremacy as that requires solving a problem o how much a conventional computer can not solve in a reasonable amount time ?"] "
157 million times faster as Google had claimed. But according to IBM this does not establish quantum supremacy as that requires solving a problem a conventional computer cannot solve in a reasonable amount of time. Two and a half days ["Q-0101 But according to Ibm this does not establish quantum supremacy as that requires solving a problem a conventional computer can not solve in a reasonable amount how much o o N N N time ?"] "
Summit have to increase at this rate to match Sycamore\u2019s extra qubits? For the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits. The resources \u2013 disk space memory computing power \u2013 requited to solve this problem in reasonable time by classical computers increases exponentially with size of the problem. For quantum computers adding qubits linearly ["Q-0102 ]
IBM \u2013 quantum supremacy ["Q-0103 Two and where is a half days reasonable therefore \u2013 according is yet to be attained ?"] "
IBM \u2013 quantum supremacy is yet ["Q-0104 Two and a half days is reasonable therefore \u2013 according to what is Ibm \u2013 quantum supremacy yet to be attained ?"] "
Two and a half days ["Q-0105 Who is reasonable therefore \u2013 according to Ibm \u2013 quantum supremacy is yet to be attained ?"] "
IBM \u2013 quantum supremacy ["Q-0106 Who is yet to be attained ?"] "
13.25 billion dollars ["Q-0107 ]
quantum supremacy ["Q-0108 Regarding Ibm \u2019 s claim t you quantum supremacy has yet to be did achieved Scott Aaronsen a leading quantum computing achieved scientist wrote t you Google should have foreseen what Ibm has done it does not invalidate Google \u2019 s claim ?"] "
quantum supremacy ["Q-0109 Regarding Ibm \u2019 s claim t you quantum supremacy has yet to be did achieved Scott Aaronsen a leading quantum computing achieved scientist wrote t you Google should have foreseen what Ibm has done it does not invalidate Google \u2019 s claim ?"] "
Google ["Q-0110 Regarding Ibm \u2019 s claim that quantum supremacy has yet to be where did achieved Scott Aaronsen a leading quantum computing achieved scientist wrote should have foreseen what Ibm has done it does not invalidate Google \u2019 s claim ?"] "
quantum supremacy ["Q-0111 Regarding Ibm \u2019 s claim t t N N N quantum supremacy has yet to be achieved Scott Aaronsen a leading quantum computing scientist wrote t you t you Google should have foreseen what Ibm has done it does not invalidate Google \u2019 s claim ?"] "
Scott Aaronsen ["Q-0112 Regarding Ibm \u2019 s claim t you quantum what does supremacy has yet to be achieved scientist wrote t you t you Google should have foreseen what Ibm has done it does not invalidate Google \u2019 s claim ?"] "
quantum supremacy ["Q-0113 Regarding Ibm \u2019 s claim t you quantum supremacy has yet to be did achieved Scott Aaronsen a leading quantum computing achieved scientist wrote t N t you Google should have foreseen what Ibm has done it does not invalidate Google \u2019 s claim ?"] "
IBM \u2013 quantum supremacy is yet to be attained.\u00a0Regarding IBM\u2019s claim that quantum supremacy ["Q-0114 Regarding Ibm \u2019 s claim t you quantum supremacy has yet to be achieved Scott Aaronsen a leading quantum computing scientist wrote t you t N Google should have foreseen what Ibm has done it does not invalidate Google \u2019 s claim ?"] "
foreseen ["Q-0115 Regarding Ibm \u2019 s claim t you quantum supremacy has yet to be achieved Scott Aaronsen a leading quantum computing scientist wrote t you t what should you Google have what Ibm has done it does not invalidate Google \u2019 s claim ?"] "
what IBM ["Q-0116 Regarding Ibm \u2019 s claim t you quantum supremacy has yet to be achieved Scott Aaronsen a leading quantum computing scientist wrote t you t you Google should have foreseen what what has Ibm done does not invalidate Google \u2019 s claim ?"] "
it does not invalidate Google\u2019s claim ["Q-0117 Regarding Ibm \u2019 s claim t you quantum supremacy has yet to be achieved Scott Aaronsen a leading quantum computing scientist wrote t you t you Google should have foreseen what Ibm has done what does it does not you N s claim ?"] "
IBM \u2013 quantum supremacy is yet to be attained.\u00a0Regarding IBM\u2019s claim that quantum supremacy has yet to be achieved Scott Aaronsen a leading quantum computing scientist wrote that though Google should have foreseen what IBM has done it does not invalidate Google\u2019s claim ["Q-0118 Regarding Ibm \u2019 s claim t you quantum supremacy has yet to be achieved Scott Aaronsen a leading quantum computing scientist wrote t you t you Google should have foreseen what Ibm has done it does not invalidate what N ?"] "
quantum supremacy ["Q-0119 Regarding Ibm \u2019 s claim whose quantum supremacy has yet to be achieved Scott Aaronsen a leading quantum computing scientist wrote t you t you Google should have foreseen what Ibm has done it does not invalidate Google \u2019 s claim ?"] "
quantum supremacy ["Q-0120 Regarding Ibm \u2019 s claim t you quantum supremacy has yet to be achieved Scott Aaronsen a leading quantum computing scientist wrote whose t you Google should have foreseen what Ibm has done it does not invalidate Google \u2019 s claim ?"] "
IBM Fight on Quantum Supremacy Google and IBM Fight on Quantum SupremacyPrabir PurkayasthaGOOGLE\u2019S quantum supremacy claim has now been disputed by its close competitor IBM. Not because Google\u2019s Sycamore quantum computer\u2019s calculations are wrong but because Google had underestimated what IBM\u2019s Summit the most powerful super computer in the world could do. Meanwhile Google\u2019s paper which had accidentally been leaked by a NASA researcher has now been published in the prestigious science journal Nature. So Google\u2019s claims are official now and can be examined in the way any new science claim should be examined sceptically until all the doubts are answered.We have earlier covered what is quantum computing in these columns and will move on to the key issue of quantum supremacy and what it really means.IBM\u2019s paper published around the same time as Google\u2019s Nature paper showed that Google was wrong in claiming that IBM\u2019s Summit would take 10000 y , quantum supremacy " ["Q-0122 Regarding Ibm \u2019 s claim t you quantum supremacy has yet to be t how much did achieved Scott Aaronsen a leading quantum computing achieved scientist wrote t you Google should have foreseen what Ibm has done it does not invalidate Google \u2019 s claim ?"] "
quantum supremacy ["Q-0123 Regarding Ibm \u2019 s claim t you quantum supremacy has yet to be t how much did achieved Scott Aaronsen a leading quantum computing achieved scientist wrote t you Google should have foreseen what Ibm has done it does not invalidate Google \u2019 s claim ?"] "
quantum supremacy ["Q-0124 Regarding Ibm \u2019 s claim how much t t N N N quantum supremacy has yet to be achieved Scott Aaronsen a leading quantum computing scientist wrote t you t you Google should have foreseen what Ibm has done it does not invalidate Google \u2019 s claim ?"] "
quantum supremacy ["Q-0125 Regarding Ibm \u2019 s claim t you quantum supremacy has yet to be how much did achieved Scott Aaronsen a leading quantum computing achieved scientist wrote t N t you Google should have foreseen what Ibm has done it does not invalidate Google \u2019 s claim ?"] "
quantum supremacy ["Q-0126 Regarding Ibm \u2019 s claim t you quantum supremacy has yet to be achieved Scott Aaronsen a leading quantum computing scientist wrote how much t you t N Google should have foreseen what Ibm has done it does not invalidate Google \u2019 s claim ?"] "
13.25 billion dollars ["Q-0127 ]
60 qubits IBM ["Q-0128 The key issue is not that Summit had a special way to solve the specific quantum problem Google had chosen but that Summit can not scale if Google \u2019 s to what does sycamore goes from 53 will require 33 summits ; if to 70 qubits a super computer the size of a city ! why does summit have to increase at this rate to match Sycamore \u2019 s extra qubits ? for the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits ?"] "
70 Qubits ["Q-0129 The key issue is not that Summit had a special way to solve the specific quantum problem Google had chosen but that Summit can not scale if Google \u2019 s Sycamore goes from 53 to 60 where will qubits Ibm require 33 summits ; if super computer the size of a city ! why does summit have to increase at this rate to match Sycamore \u2019 s extra qubits ? for the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits ?"] "
17-qubit increase of Sycamore needs Summit to increase thousands of times ["Q-0130 Where is the key issue not had a special way to solve the specific quantum problem Google had chosen but that Summit can not scale if Google \u2019 s Sycamore goes from 53 to 60 qubits Ibm will require 33 summits ; if to 70 qubits a super computer the size of a city ! why does summit have to increase at this rate to match Sycamore \u2019 s extra qubits ? for the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits ?"] "
thousands of times ["Q-0131 The key issue is not that Summit had a special way to solve where had the specific quantum problem Google chosen but can not scale if Google \u2019 s Sycamore goes from 53 to 60 qubits Ibm will require 33 summits ; if to 70 qubits a super computer the size of a city ! why does summit have to increase at this rate to match Sycamore \u2019 s extra qubits ? for the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits ?"] "
thousands of times ["Q-0132 The key issue is not that Summit had a special way to solve the specific quantum problem Google had chosen where but that Summit can not scale s Sycamore goes from 53 to 60 qubits Ibm will require 33 summits ; if to 70 qubits a super computer the size of a city ! why does summit have to increase at this rate to match Sycamore \u2019 s extra qubits ? for the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits ?"] "
53 ["Q-0133 The key issue is not that Summit had a special way to solve the specific quantum problem Google had chosen but that Summit can not scale if Google \u2019 s from what does sycamore goes to 60 qubits Ibm will require 33 summits ; if to 70 qubits a super computer the size of a city ! why does summit have to increase at this rate to match Sycamore \u2019 s extra qubits ? for the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits ?"] "
thousands of times ["Q-0134 The key issue is not that Summit had a special way to solve the specific quantum problem Google had chosen but that Summit can not scale if Google \u2019 s Sycamore goes from 53 to 60 will qubits Ibm require 33 summits ; if to 70 qubits a super computer the size ! why does summit have to increase at this rate to match Sycamore \u2019 s extra qubits ? for the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits ?"] "
this rate ["Q-0135 The key issue is not that Summit had a special way to solve the specific quantum problem Google had chosen but that Summit can not scale if Google \u2019 s Sycamore goes from 53 to 60 qubits Ibm will require 33 summits ; if to 70 qubits a super computer the size of a city ! why does at what do summit have to increase to match Sycamore \u2019 s extra qubits ? for the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits ?"] "
Sycamore\u2019s extra qubits ["Q-0136 The key issue is not that Summit had a special way to solve the specific quantum problem Google had chosen but that Summit can not scale if Google \u2019 s Sycamore goes from 53 to 60 qubits Ibm will require 33 summits ; if to 70 qubits a super computer the size of a city ! why does summit have to increase at this rate to match for what extra qubits ? of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits ?"] "
Sycamore\u2019s ["Q-0137 The key issue is not that Summit had a special way to solve the specific quantum problem Google had chosen but that Summit can not scale if Google \u2019 s Sycamore goes from 53 to 60 qubits Ibm will require 33 summits ; if to 70 qubits a super computer the size of a city ! why does summit have to increase at this rate to match of what extra qubits ? for the demonstration chose the simulation of quantum circuits ?"] "
quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits. The resources \u2013 disk space memory computing power \u2013 requited to solve this problem in reasonable time by classical computers increases exponentially with size of the problem. For quantum computers adding qubits linearly \u2013 meaning simply adding more qubits \u2013 increases its computing capacity exponentially. Just extra 7 qubits of Sycamore needs IBM to increase the size of Summit 33 times; 17-qubit increase of Sycamore needs Summit to increase thousands of times ["Q-0138 The key issue is not that Summit had a special way to solve the specific quantum problem Google had chosen but that Summit can not scale if Google \u2019 s Sycamore goes from 53 to 60 qubits Ibm will require 33 summits ; if to 70 qubits a super computer the"
a special way to solve the specific quantum problem Google had chosen but that Summit cannot scale if Google\u2019s Sycamore goes from 53 to 60 qubits IBM will require 33 Summits; if to 70 Qubits a super computer the size of a city!Why does Summit have to increase at this rate to match Sycamore\u2019s extra qubits? For the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits. The resources \u2013 disk space memory computing power \u2013 requited to solve this problem in reasonable time by classical computers increases exponentially with size of the problem. For quantum computers adding qubits linearly \u2013 meaning simply adding more qubits \u2013 increases its computing capacity exponentially. Just extra 7 qubits of Sycamore needs IBM to increase the size of Summit 33 times; 17-qubit increase of Sycamore needs Summit to increase thousands of times ["Q-0139 The key issue is not what did that summit"
if Google\u2019s Sycamore goes from 53 to 60 qubits IBM will require 33 Summits; if to 70 Qubits a super computer the size of a city!Why does Summit have to increase at this rate to match Sycamore\u2019s extra qubits? For the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits. The resources \u2013 disk space memory computing power \u2013 requited to solve this problem in reasonable time by classical computers increases exponentially with size of the problem. For quantum computers adding qubits linearly \u2013 meaning simply adding more qubits \u2013 increases its computing capacity exponentially. Just extra 7 qubits of Sycamore needs IBM to increase the size of Summit 33 times; 17-qubit increase of Sycamore needs Summit to increase thousands of times ["Q-0140 The key issue is not what did that Summit had a special way to solve had chosen but that Summit can no
thousands of times ["Q-0141 The key issue is not that Summit had a special way to solve what had the specific quantum problem Google chosen but that Summit can not scale if Google \u2019 s Sycamore goes from 53 to 60 qubits Ibm will require 33 summits ; if to 70 qubits a super computer the size of a city ! why does summit have to increase at this rate to match Sycamore \u2019 s extra qubits ? for the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits ?"] "
if Google\u2019s Sycamore ["Q-0142 The key issue is not that Summit had a special way to solve the specific quantum problem Google had chosen but that Summit can not scale what N goes from 53 to 60 qubits Ibm will require 33 summits ; if to 70 qubits a super computer the size of a city ! why does summit have to increase at this rate to match Sycamore \u2019 s extra qubits ? for the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits ?"] "
33 Summits ["Q-0143 The key issue is not that Summit had a special way to solve the specific quantum problem Google had chosen but that Summit can not scale if Google \u2019 s Sycamore goes from 53 to 60 what will qubits Ibm require ; if to 70 qubits a super computer the size of a city ! why does summit have to increase at this rate to match Sycamore \u2019 s extra qubits ? for the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits ?"] "
thousands of times ["Q-0144 The key issue is not that Summit had a special way to solve the specific quantum problem Google had chosen but that Summit can not scale if Google \u2019 s Sycamore goes from 53 to 60 what will qubits Ibm require 33 summits ; if to 70 qubits a super computer the size of a city ! why does have to increase at this rate to match Sycamore \u2019 s extra qubits ? for the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits ?"] "
thousands of times ["Q-0145 The key issue is not that Summit had a special way to solve the specific quantum problem Google had chosen but that Summit can not scale if Google \u2019 s Sycamore goes from 53 to 60 qubits Ibm will require 33 summits ; if to 70 qubits a super computer the size of a city ! why does what do Summit have to increase at this rate to m N s extra qubits ? for the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits ?"] "
Sycamore\u2019s extra qubits ["Q-0146 The key issue is not that Summit had a special way to solve the specific quantum problem Google had chosen but that Summit can not scale if Google \u2019 s Sycamore goes from 53 to 60 qubits Ibm will require 33 summits ; if to 70 qubits a super computer the s N of a city ! why does summit have to increase at this rate to match what N ? for the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits ?"] "
quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits. The resources \u2013 disk space memory computing power \u2013 requited to solve this problem in reasonable time by classical computers increases exponentially with size of the problem. For quantum computers adding qubits linearly \u2013 meaning simply adding more qubits \u2013 increases its computing capacity exponentially. Just extra 7 qubits of Sycamore needs IBM to increase the size of Summit 33 times; 17-qubit increase of Sycamore needs Summit to increase thousands of times ["Q-0147 The key issue is not that Summit had a special way to solve the specific quantum problem Google had chosen but that Summit can not scale if Google \u2019 s Sycamore goes from 53 to 60 qubits Ibm will require 33 summits ; if to 70 qubits a super computer the"
The key issue ["Q-0148 Who is not that Summit had a special way to solve the specific quantum problem Google had chosen but that Summit can not scale if Google \u2019 s Sycamore goes from 53 to 60 qubits Ibm will require 33 summits ; if to 70 qubits a super computer the size of a city ! why does summit have to increase at this rate to match Sycamore \u2019 s extra qubits ? for the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits ?"] "
thousands of times ["Q-0149 Who had a special way to solve the specific quantum problem Google had chosen but that Summit can not scale if Google \u2019 s Sycamore goes from 53 to 60 qubits Ibm will require 33 summits ; if to 70 qubits a super computer the size of a city ! why does summit have to increase at this rate to match Sycamore \u2019 s extra qubits ? for the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits ?"] "
quantum problem ["Q-0150 Who had chosen but that Summit can not scale if Google \u2019 s Sycamore goes from 53 to 60 qubits Ibm will require 33 summits ; if to 70 qubits a super computer the size of a city ! why does summit have to increase at this rate to match Sycamore \u2019 s extra qubits ? for the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits ?"] "
thousands of times ["Q-0151 Who can not scale if Google \u2019 s Sycamore goes from 53 to 60 qubits Ibm will require 33 summits ; if to 70 qubits a super computer the size of a city ! why does summit have to increase at this rate to match Sycamore \u2019 s extra qubits ? for the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits ?"] "
Google\u2019s Sycamore ["Q-0152 Who goes from 53 to 60 qubits Ibm will require 33 summits ; if to 70 qubits a super computer the size of a city ! why does summit have to increase at this rate to match Sycamore \u2019 s extra qubits ? for the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits ?"] "
53 to 60 qubits IBM ["Q-0153 Who will require 33 summits ; if to 70 qubits a super computer the size of a city ! why does summit have to increase at this rate to match Sycamore \u2019 s extra qubits ? for the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits ?"] "
Summit ["Q-0154 Who have to increase at this rate to match Sycamore \u2019 s extra qubits ? for the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits ?"] "
quantum supremacy Google ["Q-0155 Who chose the simulation of quantum circuits ?"] "
53 ["Q-0156 The key issue is not that Summit had a special way to solve the specific quantum problem Google had chosen but that Summit can not scale if Google \u2019 s from how much does sycamore goes to 60 qubits Ibm will require 33 summits ; if to 70 qubits a super computer the size of a city ! why does summit have to increase at this rate to match Sycamore \u2019 s extra qubits ? for the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits ?"] "
13.25 billion dollars ["Q-0157 ]
reasonable time ["Q-0158 In what the resources \u2013 disk space memory computing power \u2013 computing to solve this problem by classical computers increases exponentially with size of the problem ?"] "
classical computers ["Q-0159 By what the resources \u2013 disk space memory computing power \u2013 computing to solve this problem in reasonable time increases exponentially with size of the problem ?"] "
classical computers ["Q-0160 The resources \u2013 disk space memory computing power \u2013 requited to solve this problem in reasonable time by with what exponentially of the problem ?"] "
classical computers ["Q-0161 The resources \u2013 disk space memory computing power \u2013 requited to solve this problem in reasonable time by of what exponentially with size ?"] "
classical computers solution time for a certain class ["Q-0162 What the resources \u2013 disk space memory computing computing requited to solve this problem in reasonable time by classical computers increases exponentially with size of the problem ?"] "
requited ["Q-0163 What the resources \u2013 disk space memory computing power \u2013 computing to solve in reasonable time by classical computers increases exponentially with size of the problem ?"] "
disk space memory ["Q-0164 Who computing time by classical computers increases to solve this problem in reasonable time by classical computers increases exponentially with size of the problem ?"] "
Summit have to increase at this rate to match Sycamore\u2019s extra qubits? For the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits. The resources \u2013 disk space memory computing power \u2013 requited to solve this problem in reasonable time by classical computers increases exponentially with size of the problem. For quantum computers adding qubits linearly \u2013 meaning simply adding more qubits \u2013 increases its computing capacity exponentially. Just extra 7 qubits of Sycamore needs IBM to increase the size of Summit 33 times; 17-qubit increase of Sycamore needs Summit to increase thousands of times. This is the key difference between Summit and Sycamore.\u00a0 For each extra qubit a conventional computer will have to scale its resources exponentially and this is a losing game for the conventional computer.Therefore we have to give Google the \u201cvictory\u201d here not because IBM is wrong but the principle of quantum supremacy that a q , classical computers increases exponentially with size of the problem " ["Q-0166 For what quantum computers adding adding linearly \u2013 meaning simply adding more qubits \u2013 increases its computing capacity exponentially ?"] "
classical computers ["Q-0167 For what quantum computers adding qubits linearly adding J more qubits \u2013 increases its computing capacity exponentially ?"] "
more qubits ["Q-0168 For quantum computers adding qubits linearly \u2013 meaning simply adding what qubits \u2013 N exponentially ?"] "
quantum computers ["Q-0169 Who adding adding more qubits \u2013 increases simply adding more qubits \u2013 increases its computing capacity exponentially ?"] "
quantum computers ["Q-0170 Who \u2013 adding its computing capacity exponentially ?"] "
17-qubit increase of Sycamore needs Summit to increase thousands of times. This is the key difference between Summit and Sycamore.\u00a0 For each extra qubit a conventional computer will have to scale its resources exponentially and this is a losing game for the conventional computer.Therefore we have to give Google the \u201cvictory\u201d here not because IBM is wrong but the principle of quantum supremacy that a quantum computer can really beat a conventional computer in computing a certain class of problems in reasonable time has been established. The actual demonstration \u2013 a more precise definition of reasonable time and its actual demonstration \u2013 is only of academic value. If a 53 qubit can solve the problem but with IBM\u2019s Summit still in the race even if much slower it is only a matter of time before we see it truly beaten.Of course there are other ways that this particular test could fail. A new algorithm can be discovered which solves this problem faster star , 17-qubit " ["Q-0172 Just extra 7 qubits of Sycamore needs Ibm to increase the size of Summit 33 times ; of what Summit to increase thousands ?"] "
increase ["Q-0173 Just extra 7 qubits of Sycamore what n n N N Ibm to increase the size of Summit 33 times ; 17-qubit increase of Sycamore n N to increase thousands of times ?"] "
17-qubit ["Q-0174 Just extra 7 qubits of Sycamore needs Ibm to increase the size of Summit 33 times ; what Summit to you N of times ?"] "
17-qubit increase of Sycamore needs Summit to increase thousands of times. This is the key difference between Summit and Sycamore.\u00a0 For each extra qubit a conventional computer will have to scale its resources exponentially and this is a losing game for the conventional computer.Therefore we have to give Google the \u201cvictory\u201d here not because IBM is wrong but the principle of quantum supremacy that a quantum computer can really beat a conventional computer in computing a certain class of problems in reasonable time has been established. The actual demonstration \u2013 a more precise definition of reasonable time and its actual demonstration \u2013 is only of academic value. If a 53 qubit can solve the problem but with IBM\u2019s Summit still in the race even if much slower it is only a matter of time before we see it truly beaten.Of course there are other ways that this particular test could fail. A new algorithm can be discovered which solves this problem faster star , between Summit " ["Q-0176 Where is this the key difference and Sycamore ?"] "
increase of Sycamore needs Summit to increase thousands of times ["Q-0177 What is this between Summit and Sycamore ?"] "
increase of Sycamore needs Summit to increase thousands of times ["Q-0178 Who is the key difference between Summit and Sycamore ?"] "
17-qubit increase of Sycamore needs Summit to increase thousands of times. This is the key difference between Summit and Sycamore.\u00a0 For each extra qubit a conventional computer will have to scale its resources exponentially and this is a losing game for the conventional computer.Therefore we have to give Google the \u201cvictory\u201d here not because IBM is wrong but the principle of quantum supremacy that a quantum computer can really beat a conventional computer in computing a certain class of problems in reasonable time has been established. The actual demonstration \u2013 a more precise definition of reasonable time and its actual demonstration \u2013 is only of academic value. If a 53 qubit can solve the problem but with IBM\u2019s Summit still in the race even if much slower it is only a matter of time before we see it truly beaten.Of course there are other ways that this particular test could fail. A new algorithm can be discovered which solves this problem faster star , Summit and Sycamore " ["Q-0180 For each extra qubit a conventional computer will have to scale its resources exponentially for what is and this a losing game ?"] "
a conventional computer will have to scale its resources ["Q-0181 For each extra qubit what will a conventional computer have to s N exponentially and this is a losing game for the conventional computer ?"] "
a losing game ["Q-0182 For each extra qubit a conventional computer will have to scale its resources exponentially what is and this for the conventional computer ?"] "
extra qubit a conventional computer ["Q-0183 Who will have to scale its resources exponentially and this is a losing game for the conventional computer ?"] "
Google the \u201cvictory\u201d here not because IBM ["Q-0184 Who is a losing game for the conventional computer ?"] "
billion dollars ["Q-0185 ]
IBM ["Q-0186 Therefore where do you have to give Google the \u201c victory \u201d here not is wrong but the principle of quantum supremacy that a quantum computer can really beat a conventional computer in computing a certain class of problems in reasonable time has been established ?"] "
quantum supremacy ["Q-0187 Therefore you have to give Google the \u201c victory \u201d here not of what is because Ibm wrong but the principle that a quantum computer can really beat a conventional computer in computing a certain class of problems in reasonable time has been established ?"] "
the principle of quantum supremacy ["Q-0188 Therefore you have to give Google the \u201c victory \u201d here not that what is because Ibm wrong but the principle of quantum supremacy can really beat a conventional computer in computing a certain class of problems in reasonable time has been established ?"] "
the principle of quantum supremacy ["Q-0189 Therefore you have to give Google the \u201c victory \u201d here not because Ibm is wrong but the principle of quantum supremacy that in what a quantum computer can really beat a conventional computer certain class of problems in reasonable time has been established ?"] "
a conventional computer in computing a certain class of problems ["Q-0190 Therefore you have to give Google the \u201c victory \u201d here not because Ibm is wrong but the principle of quantum supremacy that a quantum computer can really beat of what a conventional computer in computing computing a certain class in reasonable time has been established ?"] "
a conventional computer in computing a certain class of problems in reasonable time ["Q-0191 Therefore you have to give Google the \u201c victory \u201d here not because Ibm is wrong but the principle of quantum supremacy that a quantum computer can really beat in what a conventional computer in computing computing a certain class of problems has been established ?"] "
victory\u201d ["Q-0192 Therefore what do you have to give here not because Ibm is wrong but the principle of quantum supremacy that a quantum computer can really beat a conventional computer in computing a certain class of problems in reasonable time has been established ?"] "
conventional computer ["Q-0193 Therefore you have to give Google the \u201c victory \u201d here not because Ibm is wrong but the principle of quantum supremacy that what a quantum computer can really beat in computing a certain class of problems in reasonable time has been established ?"] "
a conventional computer in computing a certain class ["Q-0194 Therefore you have to give Google the \u201c victory \u201d here not because Ibm is wrong but the principle of quantum supremacy that a quantum computer can really beat what a conventional computer in computing computing of problems in reasonable time has been established ?"] "
the principle of quantum supremacy ["Q-0195 Therefore you have to give Google the \u201c victory \u201d here not because Ibm is wrong but the principle of quantum supremacy that a quantum computer can really beat a conventional computer in computing a certain class of problems in what has reasonable time been established ?"] "
the principle of quantum supremacy ["Q-0196 Who have to give Google the \u201c victory \u201d here not because Ibm is wrong but the principle of quantum supremacy that a quantum computer can really beat a conventional computer in computing a certain class of problems in reasonable time has been established ?"] "
IBM ["Q-0197 Who is wrong but the principle of quantum supremacy that a quantum computer can really beat a conventional computer in computing a certain class of problems in reasonable time has been established ?"] "
quantum computer ["Q-0198 Who can really beat a conventional computer in computing a certain class of problems in reasonable time has been established ?"] "
Quantum computers ["Q-0199 Who computing a certain class of problems in reasonable time has been established ?"] "
IBM ["Q-0200 Who has been established ?"] "
13.25 billion dollars ["Q-0201 ]
reasonable time ["Q-0202 Of what a more precise definition and its actual demonstration \u2013 is only of academic value ?"] "
academic value ["Q-0203 The actual demonstration \u2013 a more precise definition of reasonable time and its of what is actual demonstration \u2013 only ?"] "
IBM\u2019s Summit ["Q-0204 The actual demonstration \u2013 a more precise definition of reasonable time and whose actual demonstration \u2013 is only of academic value ?"] "
IBM will require 33 Summits; if to 70 Qubits a super computer the size of a city!Why does Summit have to increase at this rate to match Sycamore\u2019s extra qubits? For the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits. The resources \u2013 disk space memory computing power \u2013 requited to solve this problem in reasonable time by classical computers increases exponentially with size of the problem. For quantum computers adding qubits linearly \u2013 meaning simply adding more qubits \u2013 increases its computing capacity exponentially. Just extra 7 qubits of Sycamore needs IBM to increase the size of Summit 33 times; 17-qubit increase of Sycamore needs Summit to increase thousands of times. This is the key difference between Summit and Sycamore.\u00a0 For each extra qubit a conventional computer will have to scale its resources exponentially and this is a losing game for the conventional computer.Therefore we have to give Google the \u201cv , 13.25 billion dollars " ["Q-0206 ]
IBM\u2019s Summit ["Q-0207 If a 53 where can qubit solve the problem but still in the race even if much slower it is only a matter of time before you see it truly beaten ?"] "
the race ["Q-0208 If a 53 in what can qubit solve the problem but with Ibm \u2019 s Summit still even if much slower it is only a matter of time before you see it truly beaten ?"] "
if much slower ["Q-0209 If a 53 if what can qubit solve the problem but with Ibm \u2019 s Summit still in the race even is only a matter of time before you see it truly beaten ?"] "
time ["Q-0210 If a 53 qubit can solve the problem but with Ibm \u2019 s Summit still in the race even if of what is slower it only a matter before you see it truly beaten ?"] "
we see it truly beaten ["Q-0211 If a 53 qubit can solve the problem but with Ibm \u2019 s Summit still in the race even if before whom is slower it only a matter of time see it truly beaten ?"] "
the problem ["Q-0212 If a 53 what can qubit solve but with Ibm \u2019 s Summit still in the race even if much slower it is only a matter of time before you see it truly beaten ?"] "
a matter ["Q-0213 If a 53 qubit can solve the problem but with Ibm \u2019 s Summit still in the race even if what is slower it of time before you see it truly beaten ?"] "
a matter ["Q-0214 If a 53 qubit can solve the problem but with Ibm \u2019 s Summit still in the race even if much slower it is only whom do a matter of time before you see truly beaten ?"] "
If a 53 qubit ["Q-0215 Who can solve the problem but with Ibm \u2019 s Summit still in the race even if much slower it is only a matter of time before you see it truly beaten ?"] "
IBM\u2019s Summit ["Q-0216 Who is only a matter of time before you see it truly beaten ?"] "
IBM\u2019s Summit ["Q-0217 Who see it truly beaten ?"] "
IBM\u2019s Summit ["Q-0218 Who truly beaten ?"] "
17-qubit increase of Sycamore needs Summit to increase thousands of times. This is the key difference between Summit and Sycamore.\u00a0 For each extra qubit a conventional computer will have to scale its resources exponentially and this is a losing game for the conventional computer.Therefore we have to give Google the \u201cvictory\u201d here not because IBM is wrong but the principle of quantum supremacy that a quantum computer can really beat a conventional computer in computing a certain class of problems in reasonable time has been established. The actual demonstration \u2013 a more precise definition of reasonable time and its actual demonstration \u2013 is only of academic value. If a 53 qubit can solve the problem but with IBM\u2019s Summit still in the race even if much slower it is only a matter of time before we see it truly beaten.Of course there are other ways that this particular test could fail. A new algorithm can be discovered which solves this problem faster star , particular test " ["Q-0220 Who could fail ?"] "
13.25 billion dollars ["Q-0221 ]
IBM\u2019s Summit ["Q-0222 What can a new algorithm be discovered which solves this problem faster starting a fresh race ?"] "
IBM\u2019s Summit ["Q-0223 What can a new algorithm be discovered which s N faster starting a fresh race ?"] "
a fresh race ["Q-0224 A new algorithm can be discovered which solves what this problem faster starting ?"] "
A new algorithm ["Q-0225 Who can be discovered which solves this problem faster starting a fresh race ?"] "
IBM\u2019s Summit still in the race even if much slower it is only a matter of time before we see it truly beaten.Of course there are other ways that this particular test could fail. A new algorithm can be discovered which solves this problem ["Q-0226 Who faster starting a fresh race ?"] "
17-qubit increase of Sycamore needs Summit to increase thousands of times. This is the key difference between Summit and Sycamore.\u00a0 For each extra qubit a conventional computer will have to scale its resources exponentially and this is a losing game for the conventional computer.Therefore we have to give Google the \u201cvictory\u201d here not because IBM is wrong but the principle of quantum supremacy that a quantum computer can really beat a conventional computer in computing a certain class of problems in reasonable time has been established. The actual demonstration \u2013 a more precise definition of reasonable time and its actual demonstration \u2013 is only of academic value. If a 53 qubit can solve the problem but with IBM\u2019s Summit still in the race even if much slower it is only a matter of time before we see it truly beaten.Of course there are other ways that this particular test could fail. A new algorithm can be discovered which solves this problem faster star , fresh race " ["Q-0228 But the principle is not in what computing a specific race but the way quantum computing will scale certain class of problems that classical or conventional computers can \u2019 t ?"] "
problems ["Q-0229 But the principle is not a specific race but the way quantum computing will scale of what in solving solving a certain class that classical or conventional computers can \u2019 t ?"] "
missing the big picture ["Q-0230 What is but the principle specific race but the way quantum computing will scale in solving a certain class of problems that classical or conventional computers can \u2019 t ?"] "
a certain class ["Q-0231 But the principle is not a specific race but the way quantum computing will scale what in solving solving of problems that classical or conventional computers can \u2019 t ?"] "
classical ["Q-0232 But the principle is not a specific race but the way quantum computing will scale in solving a certain class of problems that classical or can conventional computers \u2019 ?"] "
the principle ["Q-0233 Who is not a specific race but the way quantum computing will scale in solving a certain class of problems that classical or conventional computers can \u2019 t ?"] "
quantum computing ["Q-0234 Who computing will scale in solving a certain class of problems that classical or conventional computers can \u2019 t ?"] "
quantum computing ["Q-0235 Who solving a certain class of problems that classical or conventional computers can \u2019 t ?"] "
IBM ["Q-0236 Who can \u2019 t ?"] "
17-qubit increase of Sycamore needs Summit to increase thousands of times. This is the key difference between Summit and Sycamore.\u00a0 For each extra qubit a conventional computer will have to scale its resources exponentially and this is a losing game for the conventional computer.Therefore we have to give Google the \u201cvictory\u201d here not because IBM is wrong but the principle of quantum supremacy that a quantum computer can really beat a conventional computer in computing a certain class of problems in reasonable time has been established. The actual demonstration \u2013 a more precise definition of reasonable time and its actual demonstration \u2013 is only of academic value. If a 53 qubit can solve the problem but with IBM\u2019s Summit still in the race even if much slower it is only a matter of time before we see it truly beaten.Of course there are other ways that this particular test could fail. A new algorithm can be discovered which solves this problem faster star , a race " ["Q-0238 The key issue in creating with what viable quantum computers should not be confused between classical computers and the new kid on the block the quantum computers ?"] "
classical computers ["Q-0239 The key issue in creating between what viable quantum computers should not be confused with a race and the new kid on the block the quantum computers ?"] "
quantum computers ["Q-0240 The key issue in creating on what viable quantum computers should not be confused with a race between classical computers and the new kid ?"] "
quantum supremacy ["Q-0241 What the key issue in creating creating should not be confused with a race between classical computers and the new kid on the block the quantum computers ?"] "
quantum supremacy ["Q-0242 The key issue in creating what viable quantum computers should not be confused with a race between classical computers and the new kid on the block the quantum computers ?"] "
The key issue ["Q-0243 Who creating viable quantum computers should not be confused with a race between classical computers and the new kid on the block the quantum computers ?"] "
viable quantum computers ["Q-0244 Who should not be confused with a race between classical computers and the new kid on the block the quantum computers ?"] "
17-qubit increase of Sycamore needs Summit to increase thousands of times. This is the key difference between Summit and Sycamore.\u00a0 For each extra qubit a conventional computer will have to scale its resources exponentially and this is a losing game for the conventional computer.Therefore we have to give Google the \u201cvictory\u201d here not because IBM is wrong but the principle of quantum supremacy that a quantum computer can really beat a conventional computer in computing a certain class of problems in reasonable time has been established. The actual demonstration \u2013 a more precise definition of reasonable time and its actual demonstration \u2013 is only of academic value. If a 53 qubit can solve the problem but with IBM\u2019s Summit still in the race even if much slower it is only a matter of time before we see it truly beaten.Of course there are other ways that this particular test could fail. A new algorithm can be discovered which solves this problem faster star , between two classes " ["Q-0246 As what do if you see the race of computers in solving a specific problem you are missing the big picture ?"] "
computers ["Q-0247 Of what do if you see the race as between two classes in solving a specific problem you are missing the big picture ?"] "
solving ["Q-0248 In what do if you see the race as between two classes of computers specific problem you are missing the big picture ?"] "
race ["Q-0249 What do if you see as between two classes of computers in solving a specific problem you are missing the big picture ?"] "
classical ["Q-0250 If you see the race as between two what classes of computers in solving solving are missing the big picture ?"] "
the big picture ["Q-0251 If you see the race as between two classes of computers in solving what are a specific problem you missing ?"] "
IBM\u2019s Summit ["Q-0252 Who see the race as between two classes of computers in solving a specific problem you are missing the big picture ?"] "
two classes of computers ["Q-0253 Who solving a specific problem you are missing the big picture ?"] "
between two classes of computers ["Q-0254 Who are missing the big picture ?"] "
between two ["Q-0255 As how much do if you see the race classes of computers in solving a specific problem you are missing the big picture ?"] "
17-qubit increase of Sycamore needs Summit to increase thousands of times. This is the key difference between Summit and Sycamore.\u00a0 For each extra qubit a conventional computer will have to scale its resources exponentially and this is a losing game for the conventional computer.Therefore we have to give Google the \u201cvictory\u201d here not because IBM is wrong but the principle of quantum supremacy that a quantum computer can really beat a conventional computer in computing a certain class of problems in reasonable time has been established. The actual demonstration \u2013 a more precise definition of reasonable time and its actual demonstration \u2013 is only of academic value. If a 53 qubit can solve the problem but with IBM\u2019s Summit still in the race even if much slower it is only a matter of time before we see it truly beaten.Of course there are other ways that this particular test could fail. A new algorithm can be discovered which solves this problem faster star , classical computers solution time " ["Q-0257 That what is it simply for a certain class of problems increases exponentially with the size of the problem and beyond a certain size you just can \u2019 t solve them in any reasonable time ?"] "
a certain class ["Q-0258 For what is it simply that for classical computers solution time of problems increases exponentially with the size of the problem and beyond a certain size you just can \u2019 t solve them in any reasonable time ?"] "
the big picture ["Q-0259 Of what is it simply that for classical computers solution time for a certain class exponentially with the size of the problem and beyond a certain size you just can \u2019 t solve them in any reasonable time ?"] "
the size ["Q-0260 With what is it simply that for classical computers solution time for a certain class of problems increases exponentially of the problem and beyond a certain size you just can \u2019 t solve them in any reasonable time ?"] "
size of the problem ["Q-0261 Of what is it simply that for classical computers solution time for a certain class of problems increases exponentially with the size and beyond a certain size you just can \u2019 t solve them in any reasonable time ?"] "
the big picture ["Q-0262 Beyond what is it simply that for classical computers solution time for a certain class of problems increases exponentially with the size of the problem and just can \u2019 t solve them in any reasonable time ?"] "
in any reasonable time ["Q-0263 It is simply that for classical computers solution time for a certain class of problems increases exponentially with the size of the problem and beyond in what can a certain size you just \u2019 t solve them ?"] "
the big picture ["Q-0264 It is simply that for classical computers solution time for a certain class of problems increases exponentially with the size of the problem and beyond whom can a certain size you just \u2019 t solve in any reasonable time ?"] "
the big picture ["Q-0265 Who is simply that for classical computers solution time for a certain class of problems increases exponentially with the size of the problem and beyond a certain size you just can \u2019 t solve them in any reasonable time ?"] "
Quantum computers ["Q-0266 Who just can \u2019 t solve them in any reasonable time ?"] "
17-qubit increase of Sycamore needs Summit to increase thousands of times. This is the key difference between Summit and Sycamore.\u00a0 For each extra qubit a conventional computer will have to scale its resources exponentially and this is a losing game for the conventional computer.Therefore we have to give Google the \u201cvictory\u201d here not because IBM is wrong but the principle of quantum supremacy that a quantum computer can really beat a conventional computer in computing a certain class of problems in reasonable time has been established. The actual demonstration \u2013 a more precise definition of reasonable time and its actual demonstration \u2013 is only of academic value. If a 53 qubit can solve the problem but with IBM\u2019s Summit still in the race even if much slower it is only a matter of time before we see it truly beaten.Of course there are other ways that this particular test could fail. A new algorithm can be discovered which solves this problem faster star , solving " ["Q-0268 For what do quantum computers have the potential such problems in a reasonable time therefore opening the door for computing such problems ?"] "
reasonable time ["Q-0269 Quantum computers have in what the potential for solving solving such problems therefore opening the door for computing such problems ?"] "
opening the door ["Q-0270 Quantum computers have therefore what the potential for solving solving such problems in a reasonable time for computing such problems ?"] "
computing ["Q-0271 Quantum computers have the potential for solving such problems in for what the door such problems ?"] "
potential ["Q-0272 What do quantum computers have for solving such problems in a reasonable time therefore opening the door for computing such problems ?"] "
the size of the problem ["Q-0273 Quantum computers have what the potential for solving solving in a reasonable time therefore opening the door for computing such problems ?"] "
the size of the problem ["Q-0274 Quantum computers have what the potential for solving solving such problems in a reasonable time therefore opening for computing such problems ?"] "
classical computers solution time for a certain class of problems increases exponentially with the size of the problem and beyond a certain size we just can\u2019t solve them in any reasonable time. Quantum computers have the potential for solving such problems in a reasonable time therefore opening the door for computing such problems.Are there such problems and will they yield worthwhile technological applications ["Q-0275 Quantum computers have the potential for solving such problems in what a reasonable time therefore opening the door for computing opening ?"] "
17-qubit increase of Sycamore needs Summit to increase thousands of times. This is the key difference between Summit and Sycamore.\u00a0 For each extra qubit a conventional computer will have to scale its resources exponentially and this is a losing game for the conventional computer.Therefore we have to give Google the \u201cvictory\u201d here not because IBM is wrong but the principle of quantum supremacy that a quantum computer can really beat a conventional computer in computing a certain class of problems in reasonable time has been established. The actual demonstration \u2013 a more precise definition of reasonable time and its actual demonstration \u2013 is only of academic value. If a 53 qubit can solve the problem but with IBM\u2019s Summit still in the race even if much slower it is only a matter of time before we see it truly beaten.Of course there are other ways that this particular test could fail. A new algorithm can be discovered which solves this problem faster star , quantum circuits " ["Q-0277 Are there such problems and will they yield worthwhile technological applications ? of what the first problem chosen computing computing the future states were not chosen for any practical application ?"] "
any practical application ["Q-0278 Are there such problems and will they yield worthwhile technological applications ? the first problem chosen computing the future states of for what were quantum circuits not chosen ?"] "
Quantum computers ["Q-0279 Are whom there such problems and will yield worthwhile technological applications ? the first problem chosen computing the future states of quantum circuits were not chosen for any practical application ?"] "
yield worthwhile technological applications ["Q-0280 Are there such problems and will what they y N ? the first problem chosen computing the future states of quantum circuits were not chosen for any practical application ?"] "
the future states ["Q-0281 Are there such problems and will they yield worthwhile technological applications ? what the first problem chosen computing computing of quantum circuits were not chosen for any practical application ?"] "
not chosen ["Q-0282 Are there such problems and will they yield worthwhile technological applications ? the first problem chosen computing the future states of what were quantum circuits for any practical application ?"] "
Quantum computers ["Q-0283 Who will they yield worthwhile technological applications ? the first problem chosen computing the future states of quantum circuits were not chosen for any practical application ?"] "
Quantum computers ["Q-0284 Who yield worthwhile technological applications ? the first problem chosen computing the future states of quantum circuits were not chosen for any practical application ?"] "
The first problem ["Q-0285 Who computing the future states of quantum circuits were not chosen for any practical application ?"] "
computing the future states of quantum circuits ["Q-0286 Who were not chosen for any practical application ?"] "
17-qubit increase of Sycamore needs Summit to increase thousands of times. This is the key difference between Summit and Sycamore.\u00a0 For each extra qubit a conventional computer will have to scale its resources exponentially and this is a losing game for the conventional computer.Therefore we have to give Google the \u201cvictory\u201d here not because IBM is wrong but the principle of quantum supremacy that a quantum computer can really beat a conventional computer in computing a certain class of problems in reasonable time has been established. The actual demonstration \u2013 a more precise definition of reasonable time and its actual demonstration \u2013 is only of academic value. If a 53 qubit can solve the problem but with IBM\u2019s Summit still in the race even if much slower it is only a matter of time before we see it truly beaten.Of course there are other ways that this particular test could fail. A new algorithm can be discovered which solves this problem faster star , a problem " ["Q-0288 It was simply chosen to showcase as what did quantum supremacy defined that a classical computer can not solve in reasonable time ?"] "
classical computer ["Q-0289 It was simply chosen to showcase quantum supremacy defined that what as a quantum computer solving solving a problem can not solve in reasonable time ?"] "
quantum circuits ["Q-0290 It was simply chosen to showcase quantum supremacy defined as a quantum computer solving a problem that in what a classical computer can not solve ?"] "
The first problem chosen computing the future states of quantum circuits ["Q-0291 What did it was to showcase quantum supremacy defined as a quantum computer solving a problem that a classical computer can not solve in reasonable time ?"] "
quantum supremacy ["Q-0292 What did it was simply chosen to s N defined as a quantum computer solving a problem that a classical computer can not solve in reasonable time ?"] "
quantum circuits ["Q-0293 It was simply chosen to showcase quantum supremacy defined what as a quantum computer solving solving that a classical computer can not solve in reasonable time ?"] "
quantum circuits ["Q-0294 Who was simply chosen to showcase quantum supremacy defined as a quantum computer solving a problem that a classical computer can not solve in reasonable time ?"] "
quantum supremacy ["Q-0295 Who defined as a quantum computer solving a problem that a classical computer can not solve in reasonable time ?"] "
quantum computer ["Q-0296 Who solving a problem that a classical computer can not solve in reasonable time ?"] "
conventional computer ["Q-0297 Who can not solve in reasonable time ?"] "
17-qubit increase of Sycamore needs Summit to increase thousands of times. This is the key difference between Summit and Sycamore.\u00a0 For each extra qubit a conventional computer will have to scale its resources exponentially and this is a losing game for the conventional computer.Therefore we have to give Google the \u201cvictory\u201d here not because IBM is wrong but the principle of quantum supremacy that a quantum computer can really beat a conventional computer in computing a certain class of problems in reasonable time has been established. The actual demonstration \u2013 a more precise definition of reasonable time and its actual demonstration \u2013 is only of academic value. If a 53 qubit can solve the problem but with IBM\u2019s Summit still in the race even if much slower it is only a matter of time before we see it truly beaten.Of course there are other ways that this particular test could fail. A new algorithm can be discovered which solves this problem faster star , Jianwei Pan " ["Q-0299 Recently by what did a chinese team led has a paper that shows another problem a Boson Sampling experiment with 20 photons can also be a pathway to show quantum supremacy ?"] "
20 photons ["Q-0300 Recently with what did a chinese team led by Jianwei Pan led a paper that shows another problem a Boson Sampling experiment can also be a pathway to show quantum supremacy ?"] "
a paper ["Q-0301 Recently what did a chinese team led by Jianwei Pan led that shows another problem a Boson Sampling experiment with 20 photons can also be a pathway to show quantum supremacy ?"] "
Boson Sampling experiment ["Q-0302 Recently what did a chinese team led by Jianwei Pan led a paper that shows with 20 photons can also be a pathway to show quantum supremacy ?"] "
a pathway ["Q-0303 Recently a chinese team led by Jianwei Pan has a paper that shows another problem a Boson Sampling experiment with 20 what photons can also be to show quantum supremacy ?"] "
quantum supremacy ["Q-0304 Recently a chinese team led by Jianwei Pan has a paper that shows another problem a Boson Sampling experiment with 20 what photons can also be a pathway to s N ?"] "
Jianwei Pan ["Q-0305 Who led that shows another p N a paper that shows another problem a Boson Sampling experiment with 20 photons can also be a pathway to show quantum supremacy ?"] "
Boson Sampling ["Q-0306 Who can also be a pathway to show quantum supremacy ?"] "
20 ["Q-0307 Recently with how much did a chinese team led by Jianwei Pan led a paper that shows another problem a Boson Sampling experiment photons can also be a pathway to show quantum supremacy ?"] "
17-qubit increase of Sycamore needs Summit to increase thousands of times. This is the key difference between Summit and Sycamore.\u00a0 For each extra qubit a conventional computer will have to scale its resources exponentially and this is a losing game for the conventional computer.Therefore we have to give Google the \u201cvictory\u201d here not because IBM is wrong but the principle of quantum supremacy that a quantum computer can really beat a conventional computer in computing a certain class of problems in reasonable time has been established. The actual demonstration \u2013 a more precise definition of reasonable time and its actual demonstration \u2013 is only of academic value. If a 53 qubit can solve the problem but with IBM\u2019s Summit still in the race even if much slower it is only a matter of time before we see it truly beaten.Of course there are other ways that this particular test could fail. A new algorithm can be discovered which solves this problem faster star , classical computers solution time for a certain class of problems increases exponentially with the size of the problem and beyond a certain size we just can\u2019t solve them in any reasonable time. Quantum computers have the potential for solving such problems in a reasonable time therefore opening the door for computing such problems.Are there such problems and will they yield worthwhile technological applications? The first problem chosen computing the future states of quantum circuits were not chosen for any practical application. It was simply chosen to showcase quantum supremacy defined as a quantum computer solving a problem that a classical computer cannot solve in reasonable time. Recently a Chinese team led by Jianwei Pan has a paper that shows another problem a Boson Sampling experiment with 20 photons can also be a pathway to show quantum supremacy " ["Q-0309 For what are these problems constructed not real world app
quantum computing works ["Q-0310 These problems are constructed not that what for showing showing real world applications but simply can potentially solve real world problems ?"] "
quantum supremacy ["Q-0311 What are these problems constructed not for showing real world applications but simply that quantum computing works can potentially solve real world problems ?"] "
real world applications ["Q-0312 These problems are constructed not what for showing showing but simply that quantum computing works can potentially solve real world problems ?"] "
quantum computing works ["Q-0313 These problems are constructed not for showing real world applications but simply what quantum that computing can potentially solve real world problems ?"] "
quantum computing works ["Q-0314 These problems are constructed not for showing real world applications but simply what works can potentially solve ?"] "
17-qubit increase of Sycamore needs Summit to increase thousands of times. This is the key difference between Summit and Sycamore.\u00a0 For each extra qubit a conventional computer will have to scale its resources exponentially and this is a losing game for the conventional computer.Therefore we have to give Google the \u201cvictory\u201d here not because IBM is wrong but the principle of quantum supremacy that a quantum computer can really beat a conventional computer in computing a certain class of problems in reasonable time has been established. The actual demonstration \u2013 a more precise definition of reasonable time and its actual demonstration \u2013 is only of academic value. If a 53 qubit can solve the problem but with IBM\u2019s Summit still in the race even if much slower it is only a matter of time before we see it truly beaten.Of course there are other ways that this particular test could fail. A new algorithm can be discovered which solves this problem faster star , simulating quantum mechanics and understanding that world better " ["Q-0316 What did provided you provided ?"] "
Jianwei Pan ["Q-0317 Who provided the r N the right problem ?"] "
17-qubit increase of Sycamore needs Summit to increase thousands of times. This is the key difference between Summit and Sycamore.\u00a0 For each extra qubit a conventional computer will have to scale its resources exponentially and this is a losing game for the conventional computer.Therefore we have to give Google the \u201cvictory\u201d here not because IBM is wrong but the principle of quantum supremacy that a quantum computer can really beat a conventional computer in computing a certain class of problems in reasonable time has been established. The actual demonstration \u2013 a more precise definition of reasonable time and its actual demonstration \u2013 is only of academic value. If a 53 qubit can solve the problem but with IBM\u2019s Summit still in the race even if much slower it is only a matter of time before we see it truly beaten.Of course there are other ways that this particular test could fail. A new algorithm can be discovered which solves this problem faster star , right problem " ["Q-0319 Of what is the question what are the class that can use quantum computers ? the first class of problems are the ones for which Feynman had postulated the quantum computers a simulation of the quantum world ?"] "
right problem ["Q-0320 Of what is the question what are the class of problems that can use quantum computers ? the first class are the ones for which Feynman had postulated the quantum computers a simulation of the quantum world ?"] "
the quantum world ["Q-0321 The question is what are the class of problems that can use quantum computers ? the first class of problems are the ones for which of what had Feynman postulated the quantum computers a simulation ?"] "
right problem.The question is what are the class of problems that can use quantum computers?The first class of problems are the ones for which Feynman had postulated the quantum computers a simulation of the quantum world. Why do we need such simulations as after all we live in the macro-world in which quantum effects are not visible to us? The right word is visible to us but they are all around us in different ways ["Q-0322 What is the question what are of problems that can use quantum computers ? the first class of problems are the ones for which Feynman had postulated the quantum computers a simulation of the quantum world ?"] "
quantum computers?The ["Q-0323 What is the question what are the class of problems that can use ? the first class of problems are the ones for which Feynman had postulated the quantum computers a simulation of the quantum world ?"] "
right problem ["Q-0324 The question is what are the class of problems that can use quantum computers ? what are the first class of problems for which Feynman had postulated the quantum computers a simulation of the quantum world ?"] "
right problem ["Q-0325 The question is what are the class of problems that can use quantum computers ? the first class of problems are the ones for which what had Feynman postulated of the quantum world ?"] "
right problem ["Q-0326 Who is what are the class of problems that can use quantum computers ? the first class of problems are the ones for which Feynman had postulated the quantum computers a simulation of the quantum world ?"] "
first class of problems ["Q-0327 Who are the ones for which Feynman had postulated the quantum computers a simulation of the quantum world ?"] "
Feynman ["Q-0328 Who had postulated the quantum computers a simulation of the quantum world ?"] "
Democracy newsletter ["Q-0329 ]
The right word ["Q-0330 Why do you need such simulations as after all you live in the macro - world in which to whom are quantum effects not visible ? the right word is visible to us but they are all around us in different ways ?"] "
class of problems ["Q-0331 Why do you need such simulations as after all you live in the macro - world in which quantum effects are not visible to us ? to whom is the right word visible but they are all around us in different ways ?"] "
class of problems ["Q-0332 Why do as what you need such simulations live in the macro - world in which quantum effects are not visible to us ? the right word is visible to us but they are all around us in different ways ?"] "
macro-world ["Q-0333 Why do you need such simulations as after all you live in which quantum effects are not visible to us ? the right word is visible to us but they are all around us in different ways ?"] "
class of problems ["Q-0334 Why do you need such simulations as after all you live in the macro - world in which quantum effects are not visible to us ? the right word is visible to around whom are us but they all in different ways ?"] "
different ways ["Q-0335 Why do you need such simulations as after all you live in the macro - world in which quantum effects are not visible to us ? the right word is visible to in what are us but they all around us ?"] "
simulations ["Q-0336 Why do what you n N as after all you live in the macro - world in which quantum effects are not visible to us ? the right word is visible to us but they are all around us in different ways ?"] "
The right word ["Q-0337 Why do you need such simulations as after all you live in the macro - world in which quantum effects are not visible to us ? the right word is visible to what are us but they around us in different ways ?"] "
we ["Q-0338 Who need such simulations as after all you live in the macro - world in which quantum effects are not visible to us ? the right word is visible to us but they are all around us in different ways ?"] "
simulations ["Q-0339 Who live in the macro - world in which quantum effects are not visible to us ? the right word is visible to us but they are all around us in different ways ?"] "
quantum effects ["Q-0340 Who are not visible to us ? the right word is visible to us but they are all around us in different ways ?"] "
The right word ["Q-0341 Who is visible to us but they are all around us in different ways ?"] "
The right word ["Q-0342 Who are all around us in different ways ?"] "
Democracy newsletter ["Q-0343 ]
IBM Google ["Q-0344 That whom is it now clear using classical computers can not simulate for instance protein folding as it involves the quantum world intersecting the macro - world ?"] "
protein folding ["Q-0345 It is now clear using for what classical computers that you can not simulate as it involves the quantum world intersecting the macro - world ?"] "
The right word ["Q-0346 It is now clear using classical computers that you can not simulate as whom for instance protein folding folding involves the quantum world intersecting the macro - world ?"] "
The right word is visible to us but they are all around us in different ways.It is now clear using classical computers that we cannot simulate for instance protein folding as it involves the quantum world intersecting the macro-world. A quantum computer could simulate the probability of how many possible ways it could fold ["Q-0347 What is it classical computers that you can not simulate for instance protein folding as it involves the quantum world intersecting the macro - world ?"] "
the quantum world intersecting the macro-world ["Q-0348 It is now clear using classical computers that you can not simulate what for instance protein folding as it folding ?"] "
Democracy newsletter ["Q-0349 ]
the probability ["Q-0350 What could a quantum computer simulate of how many possible ways it could fold ?"] "
A quantum computer ["Q-0351 Who could simulate the probability of how many possible ways it could fold ?"] "
A quantum computer ["Q-0352 Who could fold ?"] "
Democracy newsletter ["Q-0353 ]
biologics ["Q-0354 This would allow us to build not only new materials but also as what did medicines known known and work out what are their actual medical pathways ?"] "
fold ["Q-0355 What would this allow to build not only new materials but also medicines known as biologics and work out what are their actual medical pathways ?"] "
fold ["Q-0356 What would this allow us to b N but also medicines known as biologics and work out what are their actual medical pathways ?"] "
fold ["Q-0357 This would allow us to build not only new materials but also what did medicines known as biologics and work known what are actual medical pathways ?"] "
fold ["Q-0358 Who would allow us to build not only new materials but also medicines known as biologics and work out what are their actual medical pathways ?"] "
biologics ["Q-0359 Who known to build not only n J what are their actual medical pathways ?"] "
13.25 billion dollars ["Q-0360 ]
discovery ["Q-0361 So of what could new complex chemicals be a field or new materials with complex molecules ?"] "
complex molecules ["Q-0362 So with what could new complex chemicals be a field of discovery or new materials ?"] "
medical pathways ["Q-0363 So what could new complex chemicals be of discovery or new materials with complex molecules ?"] "
complex chemicals ["Q-0364 Who could be a field of discovery or new materials with complex molecules ?"] "
13.25 billion dollars ["Q-0365 ]
13.25 billion dollars ["Q-0366 ]
gung-ho ["Q-0367 On what is the business world \u2013 Ibm Google \u2013 gung - ho of quantum computers for such applications and that is why they are all investing in it big time ?"] "
quantum computers ["Q-0368 Of what is the business world \u2013 Ibm Google \u2013 gung - ho on the possible use for such applications and that is why they are all investing in it big time ?"] "
applications ["Q-0369 For what is the business world \u2013 Ibm Google \u2013 gung - ho on the possible use of quantum computers and that is why they are all investing in it big time ?"] "
they are all investing in it big time ["Q-0370 The business world \u2013 Ibm Google \u2013 is gung - ho on the possible use of quantum computers for such applications and that is why in whom are they all investing big time ?"] "
all investing ["Q-0371 The business world \u2013 Ibm Google \u2013 is gung - ho on the possible use of quantum computers for such applications and that is why what are they in it big time ?"] "
IBM Google ["Q-0372 Who is gung - ho on the possible use of quantum computers for such applications and that is why they are all investing in it big time ?"] "
IBM Google ["Q-0373 Who is why they are all investing in it big time ?"] "
IBM Google ["Q-0374 Who are all investing in it big time ?"] "
17-qubit increase of Sycamore needs Summit to increase thousands of times. This is the key difference between Summit and Sycamore.\u00a0 For each extra qubit a conventional computer will have to scale its resources exponentially and this is a losing game for the conventional computer.Therefore we have to give Google the \u201cvictory\u201d here not because IBM is wrong but the principle of quantum supremacy that a quantum computer can really beat a conventional computer in computing a certain class of problems in reasonable time has been established. The actual demonstration \u2013 a more precise definition of reasonable time and its actual demonstration \u2013 is only of academic value. If a 53 qubit can solve the problem but with IBM\u2019s Summit still in the race even if much slower it is only a matter of time before we see it truly beaten.Of course there are other ways that this particular test could fail. A new algorithm can be discovered which solves this problem faster star , 17-qubit increase of Sycamore needs Summit to increase thousands of times. This is the key difference between Summit and Sycamore.\u00a0 For each extra qubit a conventional computer will have to scale its resources exponentially and this is a losing game for the conventional computer.Therefore we have to give Google the \u201cvictory\u201d here not because IBM is wrong but the principle of quantum supremacy that a quantum computer can really beat a conventional computer in computing a certain class of problems in reasonable time has been established. The actual demonstration \u2013 a more precise definition of reasonable time and its actual demonstration \u2013 is only of academic value. If a 53 qubit can solve the problem but with IBM\u2019s Summit still in the race even if much slower it is only a matter of time before we see it truly beaten.Of course there are other ways that this particular test could fail. A new algorithm can be discovered which solves this problem faster star
commercial benefits ["Q-0377 But supposing to what do quantum computers do not lead should you then abandon quantum computing ? if it is useful only for simulating quantum mechanics and understanding that world better ? Did you build the Hadron Collider investing 13 ?"] "
give us a window to the quantum world the benefits would be knowledge ["Q-0378 But supposing quantum computers do not lead to any commercial benefits should if whom you then abandon quantum computing ? is useful only for simulating quantum mechanics and understanding that world better ? Did you build the Hadron Collider investing 13 ?"] "
simulating quantum mechanics ["Q-0379 But supposing quantum computers do not lead to any commercial benefits should you then abandon quantum computing ? for what is if it useful only and understanding that world better ? Did you build the Hadron Collider investing 13 ?"] "
because we thought we will have discoveries that will have commercial value? Or should society invest in knowing the fundamental properties of space and time including that of the quantum world ["Q-0380 But supposing quantum computers do not lead to any commercial benefits should you then abandon quantum computing ? if it is useful only that what for simulating quantum mechanics and understanding simulating better ? Did you build the Hadron Collider investing 13 ?"] "
quantum computers ["Q-0381 What but supposing supposing do not lead to any commercial benefits should you then abandon quantum computing ? if it is useful only for simulating quantum mechanics and understanding that world better ? Did you build the Hadron Collider investing 13 ?"] "
give us a window to the quantum world the benefits would be knowledge ["Q-0382 But supposing quantum computers do not lead to whom any commercial benefits should then abandon quantum computing ? if it is useful only for simulating quantum mechanics and understanding that world better ? Did you build the Hadron Collider investing 13 ?"] "
knowledge ["Q-0383 But supposing quantum computers do not lead to what any commercial benefits should you then a J ? if it is useful only for simulating quantum mechanics and understanding that world better ? Did you build the Hadron Collider investing 13 ?"] "
give us a window to the quantum world the benefits would be knowledge ["Q-0384 But supposing quantum computers do not lead to any commercial benefits should you then abandon quantum computing ? if it is useful only what for simulating simulating and understanding that world better ? Did you build the Hadron Collider investing 13 ?"] "
the Hadron Collider investing 13.25 billion dollars ["Q-0385 But supposing quantum computers do not lead to any commercial benefits should you then abandon quantum computing ? if it is useful only for simulating quantum mechanics and understanding that world better ? what Did you build ?"] "
IBM Google ["Q-0386 Who supposing quantum computers do not lead to any commercial benefits should you then abandon quantum computing ? if it is useful only for simulating quantum mechanics and understanding that world better ? Did you build the Hadron Collider investing 13 ?"] "
supposing quantum computers ["Q-0387 Who do not lead to any commercial benefits should you then abandon quantum computing ? if it is useful only for simulating quantum mechanics and understanding that world better ? Did you build the Hadron Collider investing 13 ?"] "
commercial benefits ["Q-0388 Who should you then abandon quantum computing ? if it is useful only for simulating quantum mechanics and understanding that world better ? Did you build the Hadron Collider investing 13 ?"] "
IBM Google \u2013 is gung-ho on the possible use of quantum computers for such applications and that is why they are all investing in it big time. So are nation states notably the US and China.But supposing quantum computers ["Q-0389 Who then abandon quantum computing ? if it is useful only for simulating quantum mechanics and understanding that world better ? Did you build the Hadron Collider investing 13 ?"] "
IBM Google ["Q-0390 Who computing ? if it is useful only for simulating quantum mechanics and understanding that world better ? Did you build the Hadron Collider investing 13 ?"] "
IBM Google ["Q-0391 Who is useful only for simulating quantum mechanics and understanding that world better ? Did you build the Hadron Collider investing 13 ?"] "
quantum computers ["Q-0392 Who simulating not lead to any commercial benefits should that world better ? Did you build the Hadron Collider investing 13 ?"] "
IBM Google ["Q-0393 Who build the Hadron Collider investing 13 ?"] "
the Hadron Collider ["Q-0394 Who investing 13 ?"] "
13.25 billion dollars ["Q-0395 But supposing quantum computers do not lead to any commercial benefits should you then abandon quantum computing ? if it is useful only for simulating quantum mechanics and understanding that world better ? Did you build how much the Hadron Collider investing investing ?"] "
17-qubit increase of Sycamore needs Summit to increase thousands of times. This is the key difference between Summit and Sycamore.\u00a0 For each extra qubit a conventional computer will have to scale its resources exponentially and this is a losing game for the conventional computer.Therefore we have to give Google the \u201cvictory\u201d here not because IBM is wrong but the principle of quantum supremacy that a quantum computer can really beat a conventional computer in computing a certain class of problems in reasonable time has been established. The actual demonstration \u2013 a more precise definition of reasonable time and its actual demonstration \u2013 is only of academic value. If a 53 qubit can solve the problem but with IBM\u2019s Summit still in the race even if much slower it is only a matter of time before we see it truly beaten.Of course there are other ways that this particular test could fail. A new algorithm can be discovered which solves this problem faster star , benefits " ["Q-0397 25 billion dollars and an annual running cost of 1 billion dollars only because you thought you will have discoveries that will have commercial value ? or should society invest in knowing the fundamental properties of space and time including that of the quantum world ? even to what do if the quantum computers only give us a window would be knowledge ?"] "
knowing ["Q-0398 25 billion dollars and an annual running cost of 1 billion dollars only because you thought you will have discoveries that will have commercial value ? in what should or society invest fundamental properties of space and time including that of the quantum world ? even if the quantum computers only give us a window to the quantum world the benefits would be knowledge ?"] "
13.25 billion dollars and an annual running cost of 1 billion dollars only because we thought we will have discoveries that will have commercial value? Or should society ["Q-0399 25 billion dollars and an annual running cost of 1 billion dollars only because you thought you will have discoveries that will have commercial value ? or should society of what invest in knowing knowing the fundamental properties and time including that of the quantum world ? even if the quantum computers only give us a window to the quantum world the benefits would be knowledge ?"] "
that of the quantum world ["Q-0400 25 billion dollars and an annual running cost of 1 billion dollars only because you thought you will have discoveries that will have commercial value ? or should society invest in knowing that what the fundamental properties of space and time including including ? even if the quantum computers only give us a window to the quantum world the benefits would be knowledge ?"] "
13.25 billion dollars and an annual running cost of 1 billion dollars only because we thought we will have discoveries that will have commercial value? Or should society invest in knowing the fundamental properties of space and time including that of the quantum world? Even if the quantum computers ["Q-0401 25 billion dollars and an annual running cost of 1 billion dollars only because you thought you will have discoveries that will have commercial value ? or should society invest in knowing if what the fundamental properties of space and time including including that of the quantum world ? even only give us a window to the quantum world the benefits would be knowledge ?"] "
13.25 ["Q-0402 25 billion dollars and an annual running cost of 1 billion dollars only whom because you t N will have discoveries that will have commercial value ? or should society invest in knowing the fundamental properties of space and time including that of the quantum world ? even if the quantum computers only give us a window to the quantum world the benefits would be knowledge ?"] "
discoveries ["Q-0403 25 billion dollars and an annual running cost of 1 billion dollars only because you thought what will you have that will have commercial value ? or should society invest in knowing the fundamental properties of space and time including that of the quantum world ? even if the quantum computers only give us a window to the quantum world the benefits would be knowledge ?"] "
commercial value ["Q-0404 25 billion dollars and an annual running cost of 1 billion dollars only because you thought what will you have discoveries that will have ? or should society invest in knowing the fundamental properties of space and time including that of the quantum world ? even if the quantum computers only give us a window to the quantum world the benefits would be knowledge ?"] "
fundamental properties ["Q-0405 25 billion dollars and an annual running cost of 1 billion dollars only because you thought you will have discoveries that will have commercial value ? or should society what invest in knowing knowing of space and time including that of the quantum world ? even if the quantum computers only give us a window to the quantum world the benefits would be knowledge ?"] "
us a window ["Q-0406 25 billion dollars and an annual running cost of 1 billion dollars only because you thought you will have discoveries that will have commercial value ? or should society invest in knowing the fundamental properties of space and time including that of the quantum world ? even whom do if the quantum computers only give to the quantum world the benefits would be knowledge ?"] "
knowledge ["Q-0407 25 billion dollars and an annual running cost of 1 billion dollars only because you thought you will have discoveries that will have commercial value ? or should society invest in knowing the fundamental properties of space and time including that of the quantum world ? even if the quantum computers only give us a window to what would the quantum world the benefits be ?"] "
IBM Google \u2013 is gung-ho on the possible use of quantum computers for such applications and that is why they are all investing in it big time. So are nation states notably the US and China.But supposing quantum computers do not lead to any commercial benefits should we then abandon quantum computing? If it is useful only for simulating quantum mechanics and understanding that world better? Did we build the Hadron Collider investing 13.25 billion dollars and an annual running cost of 1 billion dollars ["Q-0408 Who thought you will have discoveries that will have commercial value ? or should society invest in knowing the fundamental properties of space and time including that of the quantum world ? even if the quantum computers only give us a window to the quantum world the benefits would be knowledge"
1 billion dollars ["Q-0409 Who will have discoveries that will have commercial value ? or should society invest in knowing the fundamental properties of space and time including that of the quantum world ? even if the quantum computers only give us a window to the quantum world the benefits would be knowledge ?"] "
commercial value ["Q-0410 Who should society invest in knowing the fundamental properties of space and time including that of the quantum world ? even if the quantum computers only give us a window to the quantum world the benefits would be knowledge ?"] "
commercial value ["Q-0411 Who knowing the fundamental properties of space and time including that of the quantum world ? even if the quantum computers only give us a window to the quantum world the benefits would be knowledge ?"] "
IBM Google \u2013 is gung-ho on the possible use of quantum computers for such applications and that is why they are all investing in it big time. So are nation states notably the US and China ["Q-0412 Who including that of the quantum world ? even if the quantum computers only give us a window to the quantum world the benefits would be knowledge ?"] "
quantum computers ["Q-0413 Who only give us a window to the quantum world the benefits would be knowledge ?"] "
a window to the quantum world the benefits ["Q-0414 Who would be knowledge ?"] "
13.25 billion dollars ["Q-0415 ]
13.25 billion dollars ["Q-0416 ]
now been disputed ["Q-01 What does Google and Ibm Fight on Quantum Supremacy Google and Ibm Fight on Quantum Supremacyprabir Purkayasthagoogle \u2019 S quantum supremacy claim has by its close competitor Ibm ?"] "
Google and IBM Fight on Quantum Supremacy Google and IBM Fight on Quantum SupremacyPrabir PurkayasthaGOOGLE\u2019S quantum supremacy ["Q-02 Who has now been disputed by its close competitor Ibm ?"] "
Google and IBM Fight on Quantum Supremacy Google and IBM Fight on Quantum SupremacyPrabir PurkayasthaGOOGLE\u2019S quantum supremacy ["Q-03 Who been disputed by its close competitor Ibm ?"] "
Sycamore quantum computer\u2019s calculations ["Q-04 Who are wrong but because Google had underestimated what Ibm \u2019 s Summit the most powerful super computer in the world could do ?"] "
Google ["Q-05 Who had underestimated what Ibm \u2019 s Summit the most powerful super computer in the world could do ?"] "
IBM\u2019s Summit the most powerful super computer ["Q-06 Who could do ?"] "
Google ["Q-07 Who are official now and can be examined in the way any new science claim should be examined sceptically until all the doubts are answered ?"] "
Google ["Q-08 Who can be examined in the way any new science claim should be examined sceptically until all the doubts are answered ?"] "
any new science claim ["Q-09 Who should be examined sceptically until all the doubts are answered ?"] "
Google\u2019s Sycamore quantum computer\u2019s calculations are wrong but because Google had underestimated what IBM\u2019s Summit the most powerful super computer in the world could do. Meanwhile Google\u2019s paper which had accidentally been leaked by a NASA researcher has now been published in the prestigious science journal Nature. So Google\u2019s claims are official now and can be examined in the way any new science claim should be examined sceptically until all the doubts ["Q-10 Who are answered ?"] "
earlier covered ["Q-11 What do you have what is quantum computing in these columns and will move on to the key issue of quantum supremacy and what it really means ?"] "
quantum computing ["Q-12 What do you have earlier covered what is in these columns and will move on to the key issue of quantum supremacy and what it really means ?"] "
70 ["Q-13 How much s N \u2019 ?"] "
IBM\u2019s paper published ["Q-14 What J around the same time as Google \u2019 s Nature paper showed t you Google was wrong in claiming t you Ibm \u2019 s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google \u2019 s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 s N ?"] "
Summit ["Q-15 Where did Ibm showed with clever programming and using its huge disk space could actually solve the problem in only 2 ?"] "
IBM ["Q-16 Who showed that Summit with clever programming and using its huge disk space could actually solve the problem in only 2 ?"] "
IBM ["Q-17 Who using its huge disk space could actually solve the problem in only 2 ?"] "
Quantum computers ["Q-18 Who could actually solve the problem in only 2 ?"] "
Yes Sycamore ["Q-19 Who still beat Summit on this specific problem by solving it 1100 times faster and not 157 million times faster as Google had claimed ?"] "
Yes Sycamore ["Q-20 Who solving it 1100 times faster and not 157 million times faster as Google had claimed ?"] "
Google ["Q-21 Who had claimed ?"] "
Sycamore ["Q-22 Where but according according does not establish quantum supremacy as that requires solving a problem a conventional computer can not solve in a reasonable amount o you time ?"] "
Google ["Q-23 Who according to Ibm this does not establish quantum supremacy as that requires solving a problem a conventional computer can not solve in a reasonable amount o you time ?"] "
IBM ["Q-24 Who does not establish quantum supremacy as that requires solving a problem a conventional computer can not solve in a reasonable amount o you time ?"] "
IBM ["Q-25 Who requires solving a problem a conventional computer can not solve in a reasonable amount o you time ?"] "
conventional computer ["Q-26 Who can not solve in a reasonable amount o you time ?"] "
Two and a half days ["Q-27 Who is reasonable therefore \u2013 according to Ibm \u2013 quantum supremacy is yet to be attained ?"] "
IBM \u2013 quantum supremacy ["Q-28 Who is yet to be attained ?"] "
17-qubit increase of Sycamore needs Summit to increase thousands of times ["Q-29 Where is the key issue not had a special way to solve the specific quantum problem Google had chosen but that Summit can not scale if Google \u2019 s Sycamore goes from 53 to 60 qubits Ibm will require 33 summits ; if to 70 qubits a super computer the size of a city ! why does summit have to increase at this rate to match Sycamore \u2019 s extra qubits ? for the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits ?"] "
The key issue ["Q-30 Who is not that Summit had a special way to solve the specific quantum problem Google had chosen but that Summit can not scale if Google \u2019 s Sycamore goes from 53 to 60 qubits Ibm will require 33 summits ; if to 70 qubits a super computer the size of a city ! why does summit have to increase at this rate to match Sycamore \u2019 s extra qubits ? for the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits ?"] "
17-qubit increase of Sycamore needs Summit to increase thousands of times ["Q-31 Who had a special way to solve the specific quantum problem Google had chosen but that Summit can not scale if Google \u2019 s Sycamore goes from 53 to 60 qubits Ibm will require 33 summits ; if to 70 qubits a super computer the size of a city ! why does summit have to increase at this rate to match Sycamore \u2019 s extra qubits ? for the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits ?"] "
quantum problem ["Q-32 Who had chosen but that Summit can not scale if Google \u2019 s Sycamore goes from 53 to 60 qubits Ibm will require 33 summits ; if to 70 qubits a super computer the size of a city ! why does summit have to increase at this rate to match Sycamore \u2019 s extra qubits ? for the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits ?"] "
thousands of times ["Q-33 Who can not scale if Google \u2019 s Sycamore goes from 53 to 60 qubits Ibm will require 33 summits ; if to 70 qubits a super computer the size of a city ! why does summit have to increase at this rate to match Sycamore \u2019 s extra qubits ? for the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits ?"] "
if Google\u2019s Sycamore ["Q-34 Who goes from 53 to 60 qubits Ibm will require 33 summits ; if to 70 qubits a super computer the size of a city ! why does summit have to increase at this rate to match Sycamore \u2019 s extra qubits ? for the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits ?"] "
53 to 60 qubits IBM ["Q-35 Who will require 33 summits ; if to 70 qubits a super computer the size of a city ! why does summit have to increase at this rate to match Sycamore \u2019 s extra qubits ? for the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits ?"] "
Summit ["Q-36 Who have to increase at this rate to match Sycamore \u2019 s extra qubits ? for the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits ?"] "
quantum supremacy Google ["Q-37 Who chose the simulation of quantum circuits ?"] "
classical computers solution time for a certain class ["Q-38 What the resources \u2013 disk space memory computing computing requited to solve this problem in reasonable time by classical computers increases exponentially with size of the problem ?"] "
requited ["Q-39 What the resources \u2013 disk space memory computing power \u2013 computing to solve in reasonable time by classical computers increases exponentially with size of the problem ?"] "
disk space memory ["Q-40 Who computing time by classical computers increases to solve this problem in reasonable time by classical computers increases exponentially with size of the problem ?"] "
quantum computers ["Q-41 Who adding adding more qubits \u2013 increases simply adding more qubits \u2013 increases its computing capacity exponentially ?"] "
quantum computers ["Q-42 Who \u2013 adding its computing capacity exponentially ?"] "
between Summit ["Q-43 Where is this the key difference and Sycamore ?"] "
17-qubit increase of Sycamore ["Q-44 What is this between Summit and Sycamore ?"] "
increase of Sycamore needs Summit to increase thousands of times ["Q-45 Who is the key difference between Summit and Sycamore ?"] "
extra qubit a conventional computer ["Q-46 Who will have to scale its resources exponentially and this is a losing game for the conventional computer ?"] "
Google the \u201cvictory\u201d here not because IBM ["Q-47 Who is a losing game for the conventional computer ?"] "
the principle of quantum supremacy ["Q-48 Who have to give Google the \u201c victory \u201d here not because Ibm is wrong but the principle of quantum supremacy that a quantum computer can really beat a conventional computer in computing a certain class of problems in reasonable time has been established ?"] "
IBM ["Q-49 Who is wrong but the principle of quantum supremacy that a quantum computer can really beat a conventional computer in computing a certain class of problems in reasonable time has been established ?"] "
quantum computer ["Q-50 Who can really beat a conventional computer in computing a certain class of problems in reasonable time has been established ?"] "
Quantum computers ["Q-51 Who computing a certain class of problems in reasonable time has been established ?"] "
IBM. Not because Google\u2019s Sycamore quantum computer\u2019s calculations are wrong but because Google had underestimated what IBM\u2019s Summit the most powerful super computer in the world could do. Meanwhile Google\u2019s paper which had accidentally been leaked by a NASA researcher ["Q-52 Who has been established ?"] "
actual demonstration ["Q-53 Who is only of academic value ?"] "
If a 53 qubit ["Q-54 Who can solve the problem but with Ibm \u2019 s Summit still in the race even if much slower it is only a matter of time before you see it truly beaten ?"] "
IBM\u2019s Summit ["Q-55 Who is only a matter of time before you see it truly beaten ?"] "
IBM\u2019s Summit ["Q-56 Who see it truly beaten ?"] "
IBM\u2019s Summit ["Q-57 Who truly beaten ?"] "
IBM\u2019s Summit still in the race even if much slower it is only a matter of time before we see it truly beaten.Of course there are other ways that this particular test ["Q-58 Who could fail ?"] "
IBM\u2019s Summit ["Q-59 What can a new algorithm be discovered which solves this problem faster starting a fresh race ?"] "
IBM\u2019s Summit ["Q-60 What can a new algorithm be discovered which s N faster starting a fresh race ?"] "
A new algorithm ["Q-61 Who can be discovered which solves this problem faster starting a fresh race ?"] "
IBM ["Q-62 Who faster starting a fresh race ?"] "
missing the big picture ["Q-63 What is but the principle specific race but the way quantum computing will scale in solving a certain class of problems that classical or conventional computers can \u2019 t ?"] "
the principle ["Q-64 Who is not a specific race but the way quantum computing will scale in solving a certain class of problems that classical or conventional computers can \u2019 t ?"] "
quantum computing ["Q-65 Who computing will scale in solving a certain class of problems that classical or conventional computers can \u2019 t ?"] "
quantum computing ["Q-66 Who solving a certain class of problems that classical or conventional computers can \u2019 t ?"] "
IBM ["Q-67 Who can \u2019 t ?"] "
quantum supremacy ["Q-68 What the key issue in creating creating should not be confused with a race between classical computers and the new kid on the block the quantum computers ?"] "
The key issue ["Q-69 Who creating viable quantum computers should not be confused with a race between classical computers and the new kid on the block the quantum computers ?"] "
viable quantum computers ["Q-70 Who should not be confused with a race between classical computers and the new kid on the block the quantum computers ?"] "
race ["Q-71 What do if you see as between two classes of computers in solving a specific problem you are missing the big picture ?"] "
IBM ["Q-72 Who see the race as between two classes of computers in solving a specific problem you are missing the big picture ?"] "
two classes of computers ["Q-73 Who solving a specific problem you are missing the big picture ?"] "
between two classes of computers ["Q-74 Who are missing the big picture ?"] "
IBM\u2019s Summit still in the race even if much slower it is only a matter of time before we see it truly beaten.Of course there are other ways that this particular test could fail. A new algorithm can be discovered which solves this problem faster starting a fresh race. But the principle is not a specific race but the way quantum computing will scale in solving a certain class of problems that classical or conventional computers can\u2019t.The key issue in creating viable quantum computers should not be confused with a race between classical computers and the new kid on the block the quantum computers. If we see the race as between two classes of computers in solving a specific problem we are missing the big picture ["Q-75 Who is simply that for classical computers solution time for a certain class of problems increases exponentially with the size of the problem and beyond a"
a certain size we just can\u2019t solve them in any reasonable time. Quantum computers have the potential for solving such problems in a reasonable time therefore opening the door for computing such problems.Are there such problems and will they yield worthwhile technological applications? The first problem chosen computing the future states of quantum circuits were not chosen for any practical application. It was simply chosen to showcase quantum supremacy defined as a quantum computer solving a problem that a classical computer ["Q-76 Who just can \u2019 t solve them in any reasonable time ?"] "
potential ["Q-77 What do quantum computers have for solving such problems in a reasonable time therefore opening the door for computing such problems ?"] "
Quantum computers ["Q-78 Who will they yield worthwhile technological applications ? the first problem chosen computing the future states of quantum circuits were not chosen for any practical application ?"] "
problems ["Q-79 Who yield worthwhile technological applications ? the first problem chosen computing the future states of quantum circuits were not chosen for any practical application ?"] "
The first problem ["Q-80 Who computing the future states of quantum circuits were not chosen for any practical application ?"] "
computing the future states of quantum circuits ["Q-81 Who were not chosen for any practical application ?"] "
The first problem chosen computing the future states of quantum circuits ["Q-82 What did it was to showcase quantum supremacy defined as a quantum computer solving a problem that a classical computer can not solve in reasonable time ?"] "
quantum supremacy ["Q-83 What did it was simply chosen to s N defined as a quantum computer solving a problem that a classical computer can not solve in reasonable time ?"] "
quantum circuits ["Q-84 Who was simply chosen to showcase quantum supremacy defined as a quantum computer solving a problem that a classical computer can not solve in reasonable time ?"] "
quantum supremacy ["Q-85 Who defined as a quantum computer solving a problem that a classical computer can not solve in reasonable time ?"] "
quantum computer ["Q-86 Who solving a problem that a classical computer can not solve in reasonable time ?"] "
conventional computer ["Q-87 Who can not solve in reasonable time ?"] "
Jianwei Pan ["Q-88 Who led that shows another p N a paper that shows another problem a Boson Sampling experiment with 20 photons can also be a pathway to show quantum supremacy ?"] "
Boson Sampling ["Q-89 Who can also be a pathway to show quantum supremacy ?"] "
quantum supremacy ["Q-90 What are these problems constructed not for showing real world applications but simply that quantum computing works can potentially solve real world problems ?"] "
Democracy newsletter ["Q-91 What did provided you provided ?"] "
Feynman ["Q-92 Who provided the r N the right problem ?"] "
right problem.The question is what are the class of problems that can use quantum computers?The first class of problems are the ones for which Feynman had postulated the quantum computers a simulation of the quantum world. Why do we need such simulations as after all we live in the macro-world in which quantum effects are not visible to us? The right word is visible to us but they are all around us in different ways ["Q-93 What is the question what are of problems that can use quantum computers ? the first class of problems are the ones for which Feynman had postulated the quantum computers a simulation of the quantum world ?"] "
quantum computers?The ["Q-94 What is the question what are the class of problems that can use ? the first class of problems are the ones for which Feynman had postulated the quantum computers a simulation of the quantum world ?"] "
right problem ["Q-95 Who is what are the class of problems that can use quantum computers ? the first class of problems are the ones for which Feynman had postulated the quantum computers a simulation of the quantum world ?"] "
first class of problems ["Q-96 Who are the ones for which Feynman had postulated the quantum computers a simulation of the quantum world ?"] "
Feynman ["Q-97 Who had postulated the quantum computers a simulation of the quantum world ?"] "
The right word ["Q-98 Why do you need such simulations as after all you live in the macro - world in which to whom are quantum effects not visible ? the right word is visible to us but they are all around us in different ways ?"] "
The right word ["Q-99 Why do you need such simulations as after all you live in the macro - world in which quantum effects are not visible to us ? to whom is the right word visible but they are all around us in different ways ?"] "
The right word ["Q-100 Why do as what you need such simulations live in the macro - world in which quantum effects are not visible to us ? the right word is visible to us but they are all around us in different ways ?"] "
macro-world ["Q-101 Why do you need such simulations as after all you live in which quantum effects are not visible to us ? the right word is visible to us but they are all around us in different ways ?"] "
class of problems ["Q-102 Why do you need such simulations as after all you live in the macro - world in which quantum effects are not visible to us ? the right word is visible to around whom are us but they all in different ways ?"] "
different ways ["Q-103 Why do you need such simulations as after all you live in the macro - world in which quantum effects are not visible to us ? the right word is visible to in what are us but they all around us ?"] "
simulations ["Q-104 Why do what you n N as after all you live in the macro - world in which quantum effects are not visible to us ? the right word is visible to us but they are all around us in different ways ?"] "
The right word ["Q-105 Why do you need such simulations as after all you live in the macro - world in which quantum effects are not visible to us ? the right word is visible to what are us but they around us in different ways ?"] "
we ["Q-106 Who need such simulations as after all you live in the macro - world in which quantum effects are not visible to us ? the right word is visible to us but they are all around us in different ways ?"] "
simulations ["Q-107 Who live in the macro - world in which quantum effects are not visible to us ? the right word is visible to us but they are all around us in different ways ?"] "
quantum effects ["Q-108 Who are not visible to us ? the right word is visible to us but they are all around us in different ways ?"] "
The right word ["Q-109 Who is visible to us but they are all around us in different ways ?"] "
The right word ["Q-110 Who are all around us in different ways ?"] "
The right word is visible to us but they are all around us in different ways.It is now clear using classical computers that we cannot simulate for instance protein folding as it involves the quantum world intersecting the macro-world. A quantum computer could simulate the probability of how many possible ways it could fold ["Q-111 What is it classical computers that you can not simulate for instance protein folding as it involves the quantum world intersecting the macro - world ?"] "
the probability ["Q-112 What could a quantum computer simulate of how many possible ways it could fold ?"] "
A quantum computer ["Q-113 Who could simulate the probability of how many possible ways it could fold ?"] "
A quantum computer ["Q-114 Who could fold ?"] "
fold ["Q-115 What would this allow to build not only new materials but also medicines known as biologics and work out what are their actual medical pathways ?"] "
fold ["Q-116 What would this allow us to b N but also medicines known as biologics and work out what are their actual medical pathways ?"] "
fold ["Q-117 Who would allow us to build not only new materials but also medicines known as biologics and work out what are their actual medical pathways ?"] "
biologics ["Q-118 Who known to build not only n J what are their actual medical pathways ?"] "
complex chemicals ["Q-119 Who could be a field of discovery or new materials with complex molecules ?"] "
IBM Google ["Q-120 Who is gung - ho on the possible use of quantum computers for such applications and that is why they are all investing in it big time ?"] "
IBM Google ["Q-121 Who is why they are all investing in it big time ?"] "
IBM Google ["Q-122 Who are all investing in it big time ?"] "
quantum computers ["Q-123 What but supposing supposing do not lead to any commercial benefits should you then abandon quantum computing ? if it is useful only for simulating quantum mechanics and understanding that world better ? Did you build the Hadron Collider investing 13 ?"] "
IBM Google ["Q-124 Who supposing quantum computers do not lead to any commercial benefits should you then abandon quantum computing ? if it is useful only for simulating quantum mechanics and understanding that world better ? Did you build the Hadron Collider investing 13 ?"] "
supposing quantum computers ["Q-125 Who do not lead to any commercial benefits should you then abandon quantum computing ? if it is useful only for simulating quantum mechanics and understanding that world better ? Did you build the Hadron Collider investing 13 ?"] "
any commercial benefits ["Q-126 Who should you then abandon quantum computing ? if it is useful only for simulating quantum mechanics and understanding that world better ? Did you build the Hadron Collider investing 13 ?"] "
IBM Google \u2013 is gung-ho on the possible use of quantum computers for such applications and that is why they are all investing in it big time. So are nation states notably the US and China.But supposing quantum computers do not lead to any commercial benefits ["Q-127 Who then abandon quantum computing ? if it is useful only for simulating quantum mechanics and understanding that world better ? Did you build the Hadron Collider investing 13 ?"] "
IBM Google ["Q-128 Who computing ? if it is useful only for simulating quantum mechanics and understanding that world better ? Did you build the Hadron Collider investing 13 ?"] "
IBM Google ["Q-129 Who is useful only for simulating quantum mechanics and understanding that world better ? Did you build the Hadron Collider investing 13 ?"] "
quantum computers ["Q-130 Who simulating not lead to any commercial benefits should that world better ? Did you build the Hadron Collider investing 13 ?"] "
IBM Google ["Q-131 Who build the Hadron Collider investing 13 ?"] "
the Hadron Collider ["Q-132 Who investing 13 ?"] "
1 billion dollars ["Q-133 Who thought you will have discoveries that will have commercial value ? or should society invest in knowing the fundamental properties of space and time including that of the quantum world ? even if the quantum computers only give us a window to the quantum world the benefits would be knowledge ?"] "
1 billion dollars ["Q-134 Who will have discoveries that will have commercial value ? or should society invest in knowing the fundamental properties of space and time including that of the quantum world ? even if the quantum computers only give us a window to the quantum world the benefits would be knowledge ?"] "
commercial value ["Q-135 Who should society invest in knowing the fundamental properties of space and time including that of the quantum world ? even if the quantum computers only give us a window to the quantum world the benefits would be knowledge ?"] "
commercial value ["Q-136 Who knowing the fundamental properties of space and time including that of the quantum world ? even if the quantum computers only give us a window to the quantum world the benefits would be knowledge ?"] "
IBM Google \u2013 is gung-ho on the possible use of quantum computers for such applications and that is why they are all investing in it big time. So are nation states notably the US and China ["Q-137 Who including that of the quantum world ? even if the quantum computers only give us a window to the quantum world the benefits would be knowledge ?"] "
quantum computers ["Q-138 Who only give us a window to the quantum world the benefits would be knowledge ?"] "
a window to the quantum world the benefits ["Q-139 Who would be knowledge ?"] "
its close competitor IBM ["Q-01 Google and Ibm Fight on Quantum Supremacy Google and Ibm Fight on Quantum Supremacyprabir Purkayasthagoogle \u2019 S quantum supremacy claim has now by what been been disputed disputed close competitor Ibm ?"] "
now been disputed ["Q-02 What does Google and Ibm Fight on Quantum Supremacy Google and Ibm Fight on Quantum Supremacyprabir Purkayasthagoogle \u2019 S quantum supremacy claim has by its close competitor Ibm ?"] "
Google and IBM Fight on Quantum Supremacy Google and IBM Fight on Quantum SupremacyPrabir PurkayasthaGOOGLE\u2019S quantum supremacy ["Q-03 Who has now been disputed by its close competitor Ibm ?"] "
Google and IBM Fight on Quantum Supremacy Google and IBM Fight on Quantum SupremacyPrabir PurkayasthaGOOGLE\u2019S quantum supremacy ["Q-04 Who been disputed by its close competitor Ibm ?"] "
Hadron Collider investing 13.25 billion dollars ["Q-05 ]
Sycamore quantum ["Q-06 Not because Google \u2019 s where are computer \u2019 s calculations wrong but had underestimated what Ibm \u2019 s Summit the most powerful super computer in the world could do ?"] "
IBM ["Q-07 Not because Google \u2019 s Sycamore quantum computer \u2019 s calculations are wrong but because Google had underestimated what in what Summit the most powerful super computer could do ?"] "
Sycamore quantum computer\u2019s calculations ["Q-08 Not what N are wrong but because Google had underestimated what Ibm \u2019 s Summit the most powerful super computer in the world could do ?"] "
the principle of quantum supremacy ["Q-09 Not because Google \u2019 s Sycamore quantum computer \u2019 s calculations are what had wrong but because Google underestimated what Ibm \u2019 s Summit the most powerful super computer in the world could do ?"] "
IBM\u2019s Summit ["Q-010 Not because Google \u2019 s Sycamore quantum computer \u2019 s calculations are wrong but because Google had underestimated what what j most powerful super computer in the world could do ?"] "
Sycamore quantum computer\u2019s calculations ["Q-011 Who are wrong but because Google had underestimated what Ibm \u2019 s Summit the most powerful super computer in the world could do ?"] "
Google ["Q-012 Who had underestimated what Ibm \u2019 s Summit the most powerful super computer in the world could do ?"] "
IBM\u2019s Summit the most powerful super computer ["Q-013 Who could do ?"] "
13.25 billion dollars ["Q-014 ]
NASA researcher ["Q-015 Meanwhile Google \u2019 s paper which had accidentally where been been leaked leaked has now been published in the prestigious science journal nature ?"] "
science journal Nature ["Q-016 Meanwhile Google \u2019 s paper which had accidentally been leaked by a Nasa researcher has now in what been been published published ?"] "
Google\u2019s paper ["Q-017 Meanwhile what J which had accidentally been leaked by a Nasa researcher has now been published in the prestigious science journal nature ?"] "
Google ["Q-018 Meanwhile what paper which had by a Nasa researcher has now been published in the prestigious science journal nature ?"] "
Sycamore quantum computer\u2019s calculations ["Q-019 Meanwhile Google \u2019 s paper which had accidentally what been been leaked by a Nasa researcher leaked in the prestigious science journal nature ?"] "
Hadron Collider investing 13.25 billion dollars ["Q-020 ]
any new science claim ["Q-021 So Google \u2019 s claims are official now in what can and be examined new science claim should be examined sceptically until all the doubts are answered ?"] "
can be examined in the way any new science claim should be examined sceptically until all the doubts are answered.We have earlier covered what is quantum computing ["Q-022 So Google \u2019 s claims are official now what can and be examined in the way any new science claim should be examined sceptically until all the doubts are answered ?"] "
We have earlier covered what is quantum computing in these columns ["Q-023 So Google \u2019 s claims are official now and can be examined in the way what should any new science claim be examined sceptically until all the doubts are answered ?"] "
the doubts ["Q-024 So Google \u2019 s claims are official now and can be examined in the way any new science claim should be examined sceptically until all what are the doubts answered ?"] "
Google ["Q-025 Who are official now and can be examined in the way any new science claim should be examined sceptically until all the doubts are answered ?"] "
Google ["Q-026 Who can be examined in the way any new science claim should be examined sceptically until all the doubts are answered ?"] "
any new science claim ["Q-027 Who should be examined sceptically until all the doubts are answered ?"] "
Google\u2019s claims are official now and can be examined in the way any new science claim should be examined sceptically until all the doubts ["Q-028 Who are answered ?"] "
17-qubit increase of Sycamore needs Summit to increase thousands of times. This is the key difference between Summit and Sycamore.\u00a0 For each extra qubit a conventional computer will have to scale its resources exponentially and this is a losing game for the conventional computer.Therefore we have to give Google the \u201cvictory\u201d here not because IBM is wrong but the principle of quantum supremacy that a quantum computer can really beat a conventional computer in computing a certain class of problems in reasonable time has been established. The actual demonstration \u2013 a more precise definition of reasonable time and its actual demonstration \u2013 is only of academic value. If a 53 qubit can solve the problem but with IBM\u2019s Summit still in the race even if much slower it is only a matter of time before we see it truly beaten.Of course there are other ways that this particular test could fail. A new algorithm can be discovered which solves this problem faster star , will move on to the key issue " ["Q-030 We have earlier covered what is to what quantum computing in these columns and computing on of quantum supremacy and what it really means ?"] "
columns ["Q-031 In what do you have earlier covered what is quantum computing and will move on to the key issue of quantum supremacy and what it really means ?"] "
quantum supremacy ["Q-032 We have earlier covered what is of what quantum computing in these columns and computing on to the key issue and what it really means ?"] "
earlier covered ["Q-033 What do you have what is quantum computing in these columns and will move on to the key issue of quantum supremacy and what it really means ?"] "
quantum computing ["Q-034 What do you have earlier covered what is in these columns and will move on to the key issue of quantum supremacy and what it really means ?"] "
13.25 billion dollars ["Q-035 ]
70 ["Q-036 How much s N \u2019 ?"] "
IBM\u2019s paper published around the same time as Google\u2019s Nature paper showed that Google was wrong in claiming that IBM\u2019s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google\u2019s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 seconds ["Q-037 Ibm \u2019 s paper published around the same time as Google \u2019 did s Nature paper showed Google was wrong in claiming t you Ibm \u2019 s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google \u2019 s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 s N ?"] "
IBM\u2019s paper published around the same time as Google\u2019s Nature paper showed that Google was wrong in claiming that IBM\u2019s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google\u2019s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 seconds ["Q-038 Ibm \u2019 s paper published around the same time as Google \u2019 s Nature paper showed t you Google was wrong in claiming claiming Ibm \u2019 s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google \u2019 s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 s N ?"] "
IBM\u2019s paper published around the same time as Google\u2019s Nature paper showed that Google was wrong in claiming that IBM\u2019s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google\u2019s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 seconds ["Q-039 Ibm \u2019 s paper published around the same time as Google \u2019 s Nature paper showed t you Google was wrong in claiming t you Ibm \u2019 s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google \u2019 s had Sycamore solved in a mere 200 ?"] "
the same time ["Q-040 Ibm \u2019 s around what did paper published published as Google \u2019 s Nature paper showed that Google was wrong in claiming that Ibm \u2019 s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google \u2019 s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 seconds ?"] "
IBM\u2019s paper published around the same time as Google\u2019s Nature paper showed that Google was wrong in claiming that IBM\u2019s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google\u2019s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 seconds ["Q-041 Ibm \u2019 s where did paper published published around the same time s Nature paper showed that Google was wrong in claiming that Ibm \u2019 s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google \u2019 s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 seconds ?"] "
quantum computing ["Q-042 Ibm \u2019 s paper published around the same time as Google \u2019 where did s Nature paper showed was wrong in claiming that Ibm \u2019 s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google \u2019 s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 seconds ?"] "
claiming ["Q-043 Ibm \u2019 s paper published around the same time as Google \u2019 s Nature paper showed in what did that Google was wrong that Ibm \u2019 s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google \u2019 s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 seconds ?"] "
quantum computer\u2019s calculations ["Q-044 Ibm \u2019 s paper published around the same time as Google \u2019 s Nature paper showed that Google was where wrong in claiming claiming s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google \u2019 s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 seconds ?"] "
200 seconds ["Q-045 Ibm \u2019 s paper published around the same time as Google \u2019 s Nature paper showed that Google was wrong in claiming t you Ibm \u2019 s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google \u2019 s in what had Sycamore solved ?"] "
IBM\u2019s paper published ["Q-046 What J around the same time as Google \u2019 s Nature paper showed t you Google was wrong in claiming t you Ibm \u2019 s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google \u2019 s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 s N ?"] "
IBM\u2019s paper published around the same time as Google\u2019s Nature paper showed that Google was wrong in claiming that IBM\u2019s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google\u2019s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 seconds ["Q-047 Ibm \u2019 s paper published around the same t N as Google \u2019 did s Nature paper showed t N Google was wrong in claiming t you Ibm \u2019 s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google \u2019 s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 s N ?"] "
IBM\u2019s paper published around the same time as Google\u2019s Nature paper showed that Google was wrong in claiming that IBM\u2019s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google\u2019s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 seconds ["Q-048 Ibm \u2019 s paper published around the same t N as Google \u2019 s Nature paper showed t you Google was wrong in claiming t t N N N Ibm \u2019 s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google \u2019 s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 s N ?"] "
10000 years ["Q-049 Ibm \u2019 s paper published around the same time as Google \u2019 s Nature paper showed t you Google was wrong in claiming t you Ibm \u2019 what would s Summit take to solve the problem Google \u2019 s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 s N ?"] "
10000 years to solve the problem Google\u2019s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 seconds ["Q-050 Ibm \u2019 s paper published around the same time as Google \u2019 s Nature paper showed t you Google was wrong in claiming t you Ibm \u2019 what would s Summit take 10000 years to solve s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 s N ?"] "
Google\u2019s Sycamore ["Q-051 Ibm \u2019 s paper published around the same time as Google \u2019 s Nature paper showed t you Google was wrong in claiming t you Ibm \u2019 s Summit would take 10000 years to solve what N had solved in a mere 200 s N ?"] "
IBM\u2019s paper published around the same time as Google\u2019s Nature paper showed that Google was wrong in claiming that IBM\u2019s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google\u2019s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 seconds ["Q-052 Ibm \u2019 s paper published around the same time as Google \u2019 s Nature paper showed t you Google was wrong in claiming t you Ibm \u2019 s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google \u2019 s what had Sycamore solved in a mere 200 s N ?"] "
IBM\u2019s paper published around the same time as Google\u2019s Nature paper showed that Google was wrong in claiming that IBM\u2019s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google\u2019s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 seconds ["Q-053 Ibm \u2019 s paper published around the same time as Google \u2019 s Nature paper showed t you Google was wrong in claiming t you Ibm \u2019 s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google \u2019 s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 s s N N N ?"] "
IBM\u2019s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google\u2019s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 seconds ["Q-054 Ibm \u2019 s paper published around the same time as Google \u2019 s Nature paper showed whose Google was wrong in claiming t you Ibm \u2019 s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google \u2019 s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 s N ?"] "
IBM\u2019s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google\u2019s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 seconds ["Q-055 Ibm \u2019 s paper published around the same time as Google \u2019 s Nature paper showed t you Google was wrong in claiming whose Ibm \u2019 s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google \u2019 s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 s N ?"] "
IBM\u2019s paper published around the same time as Google\u2019s Nature paper showed that Google was wrong in claiming that IBM\u2019s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google\u2019s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 seconds ["Q-056 Ibm \u2019 s paper published around the same time as Google \u2019 s Nature paper showed t you Google was wrong in claiming t you Ibm \u2019 s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google \u2019 s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 whose ?"] "
200 seconds ["Q-057 Ibm \u2019 s paper published around the same time as Google \u2019 t how much did s Nature paper showed Google was wrong in claiming t you Ibm \u2019 s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google \u2019 s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 s N ?"] "
157 million times faster ["Q-058 Ibm \u2019 s paper published around the same time as Google \u2019 s Nature paper showed t you Google was t how much wrong in claiming claiming Ibm \u2019 s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google \u2019 s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 s N ?"] "
200 seconds ["Q-059 Ibm \u2019 s paper published around the same time as Google \u2019 s Nature paper showed t you Google was wrong in claiming t you Ibm \u2019 s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google \u2019 s s how much had Sycamore solved in a mere 200 ?"] "
200 seconds ["Q-060 Ibm \u2019 s paper published around the same t N as Google \u2019 how much did s Nature paper showed t N Google was wrong in claiming t you Ibm \u2019 s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google \u2019 s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 s N ?"] "
IBM\u2019s paper published around the same time as Google\u2019s Nature paper showed that Google was wrong in claiming that IBM\u2019s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google\u2019s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 seconds ["Q-061 Ibm \u2019 s paper published around the same t N as Google \u2019 s Nature paper showed t you Google was wrong in claiming how much t t N N N Ibm \u2019 s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google \u2019 s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 s N ?"] "
10000 ["Q-062 Ibm \u2019 s paper published around the same time as Google \u2019 s Nature paper showed t you Google was wrong in claiming t you Ibm \u2019 how much would s Summit take years to solve the problem Google \u2019 s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 s N ?"] "
IBM\u2019s paper published around the same time as Google\u2019s Nature paper showed that Google was wrong in claiming that IBM\u2019s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google\u2019s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 seconds ["Q-063 Ibm \u2019 s paper published around the same time as Google \u2019 s Nature paper showed t you Google was wrong in claiming t you Ibm \u2019 s Summit would take 10000 years to solve the problem Google \u2019 s Sycamore had solved in a mere 200 how much s s N N N ?"] "
13.25 billion dollars ["Q-064 ]
Summit ["Q-065 Where did Ibm showed with clever programming and using its huge disk space could actually solve the problem in only 2 ?"] "
clever programming ["Q-066 With what did Ibm showed that Summit and using its huge disk space could actually solve the problem in only 2 ?"] "
Google\u2019s Sycamore ["Q-067 Ibm showed that Summit with clever programming and using its in what huge disk space could actually solve the problem ?"] "
Google\u2019s Sycamore ["Q-068 Ibm showed that Summit with what clever programming and using using huge disk space could actually solve the problem in only 2 ?"] "
Google\u2019s Sycamore ["Q-069 Ibm showed that Summit with clever programming and using its what huge disk space could actually solve in only 2 ?"] "
Google\u2019s Sycamore ["Q-070 Ibm showed that Summit with clever programming and using whose huge disk space could actually solve the problem in only 2 ?"] "
IBM ["Q-071 Who showed that Summit with clever programming and using its huge disk space could actually solve the problem in only 2 ?"] "
IBM ["Q-072 Who using its huge disk space could actually solve the problem in only 2 ?"] "
Quantum computers ["Q-073 Who could actually solve the problem in only 2 ?"] "
13.25 billion dollars ["Q-074 ]
13.25 billion dollars ["Q-075 ]
Sycamore still beat Summit on this specific problem ["Q-076 Yes on what Sycamore still beat Summit by solving it 1100 times faster and not 157 million times faster as Google had claimed ?"] "
Yes Sycamore ["Q-077 Yes by what Sycamore still beat Summit on this specific problem faster and not 157 million times faster as Google had claimed ?"] "
Summit ["Q-078 Yes Sycamore still beat where summit on this specific problem by solving solving it 1100 times faster and not 157 million times faster had claimed ?"] "
beat Summit ["Q-079 Yes what Sycamore still b N on this specific problem by solving it 1100 times faster and not 157 million times faster as Google had claimed ?"] "
IBM ["Q-080 Yes Sycamore still beat whom Summit on this specific problem by solving solving faster and not 157 million times faster as Google had claimed ?"] "
faster ["Q-081 Yes Sycamore still beat Summit on this specific problem by solving it 1100 times faster and not 157 million times faster what had as Google claimed ?"] "
Yes Sycamore ["Q-082 Who still beat Summit on this specific problem by solving it 1100 times faster and not 157 million times faster as Google had claimed ?"] "
Yes Sycamore ["Q-083 Who solving it 1100 times faster and not 157 million times faster as Google had claimed ?"] "
Google ["Q-084 Who had claimed ?"] "
2.5 days.Yes Sycamore still beat Summit on this specific problem by solving it 1100 ["Q-085 Yes Sycamore still beat how much summit on this specific problem by solving solving it times faster and not 157 million times faster as Google had claimed ?"] "
Summit have to increase at this rate to match Sycamore\u2019s extra qubits? For the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits. The resources \u2013 disk space memory computing power \u2013 requited to solve this problem in reasonable time by classical computers increases exponentially with size of the problem. For quantum computers adding qubits linearly \u2013 meaning simply adding more qubits \u2013 increases its computing capacity exponentially. Just extra 7 qubits of Sycamore needs IBM to increase the size of Summit 33 times; 17-qubit increase of Sycamore needs Summit to increase thousands of times. This is the key difference between Summit and Sycamore.\u00a0 For each extra qubit a conventional computer will have to scale its resources exponentially and this is a losing game for the conventional computer.Therefore we have to give Google the \u201cvictory\u201d here not because IBM is wrong but the principle of quantum supremacy that a q , Sycamore " ["Q-087 Where but according according does not establish quantum supremacy as that requires solving a problem a conventional computer can not solve in a reasonable amount o you time ?"] "
Sycamore ["Q-088 But according to Ibm this does not establish quantum supremacy as that requires solving a problem a conventional computer can not solve in a reasonable amount time ?"] "
Sycamore still beat Summit on this specific problem by solving it 1100 times faster and not 157 million times faster as Google had claimed. But according to IBM this does not establish quantum supremacy as that requires solving a problem a conventional computer cannot solve in a reasonable amount of time. Two and a half days ["Q-089 But according to as what does Ibm this does not establish quantum supremacy requires solving a problem a conventional computer can not solve in a reasonable amount of time ?"] "
classical computer ["Q-090 But according to Ibm this does not establish quantum supremacy as that requires solving a problem in what a conventional computer can not solve of time ?"] "
classical computer ["Q-091 But according to Ibm this does not establish quantum supremacy as that requires solving a problem of what a conventional computer can not solve in a reasonable amount ?"] "
quantum supremacy ["Q-092 But according to what does Ibm this does not establish as that requires solving a problem a conventional computer can not solve in a reasonable amount o you time ?"] "
quantum supremacy ["Q-093 But according to Ibm this does not establish quantum what requires supremacy as that solving conventional computer can not solve in a reasonable amount o you time ?"] "
Sycamore ["Q-094 But according to Ibm this does not establish quantum supremacy as that requires solving a problem a conventional computer can not solve in a reasonable amount o o N N N time ?"] "
Two and a half days ["Q-095 But according to Ibm this does not establish quantum supremacy as that requires solving a problem a conventional computer can not solve in a reasonable amount whose time ?"] "
Google ["Q-096 Who according to Ibm this does not establish quantum supremacy as that requires solving a problem a conventional computer can not solve in a reasonable amount o you time ?"] "
IBM ["Q-097 Who does not establish quantum supremacy as that requires solving a problem a conventional computer can not solve in a reasonable amount o you time ?"] "
IBM ["Q-098 Who requires solving a problem a conventional computer can not solve in a reasonable amount o you time ?"] "
conventional computer ["Q-099 Who can not solve in a reasonable amount o you time ?"] "
Two and a half days ["Q-0100 But according to Ibm this does not establish quantum supremacy as that requires solving a problem o how much a conventional computer can not solve in a reasonable amount time ?"] "
157 million times faster as Google had claimed. But according to IBM this does not establish quantum supremacy as that requires solving a problem a conventional computer cannot solve in a reasonable amount of time. Two and a half days ["Q-0101 But according to Ibm this does not establish quantum supremacy as that requires solving a problem a conventional computer can not solve in a reasonable amount how much o o N N N time ?"] "
Summit have to increase at this rate to match Sycamore\u2019s extra qubits? For the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits. The resources \u2013 disk space memory computing power \u2013 requited to solve this problem in reasonable time by classical computers increases exponentially with size of the problem. For quantum computers adding qubits linearly ["Q-0102 ]
IBM \u2013 quantum supremacy ["Q-0103 Two and where is a half days reasonable therefore \u2013 according is yet to be attained ?"] "
IBM \u2013 quantum supremacy is yet ["Q-0104 Two and a half days is reasonable therefore \u2013 according to what is Ibm \u2013 quantum supremacy yet to be attained ?"] "
Two and a half days ["Q-0105 Who is reasonable therefore \u2013 according to Ibm \u2013 quantum supremacy is yet to be attained ?"] "
IBM \u2013 quantum supremacy ["Q-0106 Who is yet to be attained ?"] "
13.25 billion dollars ["Q-0107 ]
quantum supremacy ["Q-0108 Regarding Ibm \u2019 s claim t you quantum supremacy has yet to be did achieved Scott Aaronsen a leading quantum computing achieved scientist wrote t you Google should have foreseen what Ibm has done it does not invalidate Google \u2019 s claim ?"] "
quantum supremacy ["Q-0109 Regarding Ibm \u2019 s claim t you quantum supremacy has yet to be did achieved Scott Aaronsen a leading quantum computing achieved scientist wrote t you Google should have foreseen what Ibm has done it does not invalidate Google \u2019 s claim ?"] "
Google ["Q-0110 Regarding Ibm \u2019 s claim that quantum supremacy has yet to be where did achieved Scott Aaronsen a leading quantum computing achieved scientist wrote should have foreseen what Ibm has done it does not invalidate Google \u2019 s claim ?"] "
quantum supremacy ["Q-0111 Regarding Ibm \u2019 s claim t t N N N quantum supremacy has yet to be achieved Scott Aaronsen a leading quantum computing scientist wrote t you t you Google should have foreseen what Ibm has done it does not invalidate Google \u2019 s claim ?"] "
Scott Aaronsen ["Q-0112 Regarding Ibm \u2019 s claim t you quantum what does supremacy has yet to be achieved scientist wrote t you t you Google should have foreseen what Ibm has done it does not invalidate Google \u2019 s claim ?"] "
quantum supremacy ["Q-0113 Regarding Ibm \u2019 s claim t you quantum supremacy has yet to be did achieved Scott Aaronsen a leading quantum computing achieved scientist wrote t N t you Google should have foreseen what Ibm has done it does not invalidate Google \u2019 s claim ?"] "
IBM \u2013 quantum supremacy is yet to be attained.\u00a0Regarding IBM\u2019s claim that quantum supremacy ["Q-0114 Regarding Ibm \u2019 s claim t you quantum supremacy has yet to be achieved Scott Aaronsen a leading quantum computing scientist wrote t you t N Google should have foreseen what Ibm has done it does not invalidate Google \u2019 s claim ?"] "
foreseen ["Q-0115 Regarding Ibm \u2019 s claim t you quantum supremacy has yet to be achieved Scott Aaronsen a leading quantum computing scientist wrote t you t what should you Google have what Ibm has done it does not invalidate Google \u2019 s claim ?"] "
what IBM ["Q-0116 Regarding Ibm \u2019 s claim t you quantum supremacy has yet to be achieved Scott Aaronsen a leading quantum computing scientist wrote t you t you Google should have foreseen what what has Ibm done does not invalidate Google \u2019 s claim ?"] "
it does not invalidate Google\u2019s claim ["Q-0117 Regarding Ibm \u2019 s claim t you quantum supremacy has yet to be achieved Scott Aaronsen a leading quantum computing scientist wrote t you t you Google should have foreseen what Ibm has done what does it does not you N s claim ?"] "
IBM \u2013 quantum supremacy is yet to be attained.\u00a0Regarding IBM\u2019s claim that quantum supremacy has yet to be achieved Scott Aaronsen a leading quantum computing scientist wrote that though Google should have foreseen what IBM has done it does not invalidate Google\u2019s claim ["Q-0118 Regarding Ibm \u2019 s claim t you quantum supremacy has yet to be achieved Scott Aaronsen a leading quantum computing scientist wrote t you t you Google should have foreseen what Ibm has done it does not invalidate what N ?"] "
quantum supremacy ["Q-0119 Regarding Ibm \u2019 s claim whose quantum supremacy has yet to be achieved Scott Aaronsen a leading quantum computing scientist wrote t you t you Google should have foreseen what Ibm has done it does not invalidate Google \u2019 s claim ?"] "
quantum supremacy ["Q-0120 Regarding Ibm \u2019 s claim t you quantum supremacy has yet to be achieved Scott Aaronsen a leading quantum computing scientist wrote whose t you Google should have foreseen what Ibm has done it does not invalidate Google \u2019 s claim ?"] "
IBM Fight on Quantum Supremacy Google and IBM Fight on Quantum SupremacyPrabir PurkayasthaGOOGLE\u2019S quantum supremacy claim has now been disputed by its close competitor IBM. Not because Google\u2019s Sycamore quantum computer\u2019s calculations are wrong but because Google had underestimated what IBM\u2019s Summit the most powerful super computer in the world could do. Meanwhile Google\u2019s paper which had accidentally been leaked by a NASA researcher has now been published in the prestigious science journal Nature. So Google\u2019s claims are official now and can be examined in the way any new science claim should be examined sceptically until all the doubts are answered.We have earlier covered what is quantum computing in these columns and will move on to the key issue of quantum supremacy and what it really means.IBM\u2019s paper published around the same time as Google\u2019s Nature paper showed that Google was wrong in claiming that IBM\u2019s Summit would take 10000 y , quantum supremacy " ["Q-0122 Regarding Ibm \u2019 s claim t you quantum supremacy has yet to be t how much did achieved Scott Aaronsen a leading quantum computing achieved scientist wrote t you Google should have foreseen what Ibm has done it does not invalidate Google \u2019 s claim ?"] "
quantum supremacy ["Q-0123 Regarding Ibm \u2019 s claim t you quantum supremacy has yet to be t how much did achieved Scott Aaronsen a leading quantum computing achieved scientist wrote t you Google should have foreseen what Ibm has done it does not invalidate Google \u2019 s claim ?"] "
quantum supremacy ["Q-0124 Regarding Ibm \u2019 s claim how much t t N N N quantum supremacy has yet to be achieved Scott Aaronsen a leading quantum computing scientist wrote t you t you Google should have foreseen what Ibm has done it does not invalidate Google \u2019 s claim ?"] "
quantum supremacy ["Q-0125 Regarding Ibm \u2019 s claim t you quantum supremacy has yet to be how much did achieved Scott Aaronsen a leading quantum computing achieved scientist wrote t N t you Google should have foreseen what Ibm has done it does not invalidate Google \u2019 s claim ?"] "
quantum supremacy ["Q-0126 Regarding Ibm \u2019 s claim t you quantum supremacy has yet to be achieved Scott Aaronsen a leading quantum computing scientist wrote how much t you t N Google should have foreseen what Ibm has done it does not invalidate Google \u2019 s claim ?"] "
13.25 billion dollars ["Q-0127 ]
60 qubits IBM ["Q-0128 The key issue is not that Summit had a special way to solve the specific quantum problem Google had chosen but that Summit can not scale if Google \u2019 s to what does sycamore goes from 53 will require 33 summits ; if to 70 qubits a super computer the size of a city ! why does summit have to increase at this rate to match Sycamore \u2019 s extra qubits ? for the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits ?"] "
70 Qubits ["Q-0129 The key issue is not that Summit had a special way to solve the specific quantum problem Google had chosen but that Summit can not scale if Google \u2019 s Sycamore goes from 53 to 60 where will qubits Ibm require 33 summits ; if super computer the size of a city ! why does summit have to increase at this rate to match Sycamore \u2019 s extra qubits ? for the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits ?"] "
17-qubit increase of Sycamore needs Summit to increase thousands of times ["Q-0130 Where is the key issue not had a special way to solve the specific quantum problem Google had chosen but that Summit can not scale if Google \u2019 s Sycamore goes from 53 to 60 qubits Ibm will require 33 summits ; if to 70 qubits a super computer the size of a city ! why does summit have to increase at this rate to match Sycamore \u2019 s extra qubits ? for the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits ?"] "
thousands of times ["Q-0131 The key issue is not that Summit had a special way to solve where had the specific quantum problem Google chosen but can not scale if Google \u2019 s Sycamore goes from 53 to 60 qubits Ibm will require 33 summits ; if to 70 qubits a super computer the size of a city ! why does summit have to increase at this rate to match Sycamore \u2019 s extra qubits ? for the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits ?"] "
thousands of times ["Q-0132 The key issue is not that Summit had a special way to solve the specific quantum problem Google had chosen where but that Summit can not scale s Sycamore goes from 53 to 60 qubits Ibm will require 33 summits ; if to 70 qubits a super computer the size of a city ! why does summit have to increase at this rate to match Sycamore \u2019 s extra qubits ? for the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits ?"] "
53 ["Q-0133 The key issue is not that Summit had a special way to solve the specific quantum problem Google had chosen but that Summit can not scale if Google \u2019 s from what does sycamore goes to 60 qubits Ibm will require 33 summits ; if to 70 qubits a super computer the size of a city ! why does summit have to increase at this rate to match Sycamore \u2019 s extra qubits ? for the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits ?"] "
thousands of times ["Q-0134 The key issue is not that Summit had a special way to solve the specific quantum problem Google had chosen but that Summit can not scale if Google \u2019 s Sycamore goes from 53 to 60 will qubits Ibm require 33 summits ; if to 70 qubits a super computer the size ! why does summit have to increase at this rate to match Sycamore \u2019 s extra qubits ? for the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits ?"] "
this rate ["Q-0135 The key issue is not that Summit had a special way to solve the specific quantum problem Google had chosen but that Summit can not scale if Google \u2019 s Sycamore goes from 53 to 60 qubits Ibm will require 33 summits ; if to 70 qubits a super computer the size of a city ! why does at what do summit have to increase to match Sycamore \u2019 s extra qubits ? for the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits ?"] "
Sycamore\u2019s extra qubits ["Q-0136 The key issue is not that Summit had a special way to solve the specific quantum problem Google had chosen but that Summit can not scale if Google \u2019 s Sycamore goes from 53 to 60 qubits Ibm will require 33 summits ; if to 70 qubits a super computer the size of a city ! why does summit have to increase at this rate to match for what extra qubits ? of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits ?"] "
Sycamore\u2019s ["Q-0137 The key issue is not that Summit had a special way to solve the specific quantum problem Google had chosen but that Summit can not scale if Google \u2019 s Sycamore goes from 53 to 60 qubits Ibm will require 33 summits ; if to 70 qubits a super computer the size of a city ! why does summit have to increase at this rate to match of what extra qubits ? for the demonstration chose the simulation of quantum circuits ?"] "
quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits. The resources \u2013 disk space memory computing power \u2013 requited to solve this problem in reasonable time by classical computers increases exponentially with size of the problem. For quantum computers adding qubits linearly \u2013 meaning simply adding more qubits \u2013 increases its computing capacity exponentially. Just extra 7 qubits of Sycamore needs IBM to increase the size of Summit 33 times; 17-qubit increase of Sycamore needs Summit to increase thousands of times ["Q-0138 The key issue is not that Summit had a special way to solve the specific quantum problem Google had chosen but that Summit can not scale if Google \u2019 s Sycamore goes from 53 to 60 qubits Ibm will require 33 summits ; if to 70 qubits a super computer the"
a special way to solve the specific quantum problem Google had chosen but that Summit cannot scale if Google\u2019s Sycamore goes from 53 to 60 qubits IBM will require 33 Summits; if to 70 Qubits a super computer the size of a city!Why does Summit have to increase at this rate to match Sycamore\u2019s extra qubits? For the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits. The resources \u2013 disk space memory computing power \u2013 requited to solve this problem in reasonable time by classical computers increases exponentially with size of the problem. For quantum computers adding qubits linearly \u2013 meaning simply adding more qubits \u2013 increases its computing capacity exponentially. Just extra 7 qubits of Sycamore needs IBM to increase the size of Summit 33 times; 17-qubit increase of Sycamore needs Summit to increase thousands of times ["Q-0139 The key issue is not what did that summit"
if Google\u2019s Sycamore goes from 53 to 60 qubits IBM will require 33 Summits; if to 70 Qubits a super computer the size of a city!Why does Summit have to increase at this rate to match Sycamore\u2019s extra qubits? For the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits. The resources \u2013 disk space memory computing power \u2013 requited to solve this problem in reasonable time by classical computers increases exponentially with size of the problem. For quantum computers adding qubits linearly \u2013 meaning simply adding more qubits \u2013 increases its computing capacity exponentially. Just extra 7 qubits of Sycamore needs IBM to increase the size of Summit 33 times; 17-qubit increase of Sycamore needs Summit to increase thousands of times ["Q-0140 The key issue is not what did that Summit had a special way to solve had chosen but that Summit can no
thousands of times ["Q-0141 The key issue is not that Summit had a special way to solve what had the specific quantum problem Google chosen but that Summit can not scale if Google \u2019 s Sycamore goes from 53 to 60 qubits Ibm will require 33 summits ; if to 70 qubits a super computer the size of a city ! why does summit have to increase at this rate to match Sycamore \u2019 s extra qubits ? for the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits ?"] "
if Google\u2019s Sycamore ["Q-0142 The key issue is not that Summit had a special way to solve the specific quantum problem Google had chosen but that Summit can not scale what N goes from 53 to 60 qubits Ibm will require 33 summits ; if to 70 qubits a super computer the size of a city ! why does summit have to increase at this rate to match Sycamore \u2019 s extra qubits ? for the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits ?"] "
33 Summits ["Q-0143 The key issue is not that Summit had a special way to solve the specific quantum problem Google had chosen but that Summit can not scale if Google \u2019 s Sycamore goes from 53 to 60 what will qubits Ibm require ; if to 70 qubits a super computer the size of a city ! why does summit have to increase at this rate to match Sycamore \u2019 s extra qubits ? for the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits ?"] "
thousands of times ["Q-0144 The key issue is not that Summit had a special way to solve the specific quantum problem Google had chosen but that Summit can not scale if Google \u2019 s Sycamore goes from 53 to 60 what will qubits Ibm require 33 summits ; if to 70 qubits a super computer the size of a city ! why does have to increase at this rate to match Sycamore \u2019 s extra qubits ? for the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits ?"] "
thousands of times ["Q-0145 The key issue is not that Summit had a special way to solve the specific quantum problem Google had chosen but that Summit can not scale if Google \u2019 s Sycamore goes from 53 to 60 qubits Ibm will require 33 summits ; if to 70 qubits a super computer the size of a city ! why does what do Summit have to increase at this rate to m N s extra qubits ? for the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits ?"] "
Sycamore\u2019s extra qubits ["Q-0146 The key issue is not that Summit had a special way to solve the specific quantum problem Google had chosen but that Summit can not scale if Google \u2019 s Sycamore goes from 53 to 60 qubits Ibm will require 33 summits ; if to 70 qubits a super computer the s N of a city ! why does summit have to increase at this rate to match what N ? for the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits ?"] "
quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits. The resources \u2013 disk space memory computing power \u2013 requited to solve this problem in reasonable time by classical computers increases exponentially with size of the problem. For quantum computers adding qubits linearly \u2013 meaning simply adding more qubits \u2013 increases its computing capacity exponentially. Just extra 7 qubits of Sycamore needs IBM to increase the size of Summit 33 times; 17-qubit increase of Sycamore needs Summit to increase thousands of times ["Q-0147 The key issue is not that Summit had a special way to solve the specific quantum problem Google had chosen but that Summit can not scale if Google \u2019 s Sycamore goes from 53 to 60 qubits Ibm will require 33 summits ; if to 70 qubits a super computer the"
The key issue ["Q-0148 Who is not that Summit had a special way to solve the specific quantum problem Google had chosen but that Summit can not scale if Google \u2019 s Sycamore goes from 53 to 60 qubits Ibm will require 33 summits ; if to 70 qubits a super computer the size of a city ! why does summit have to increase at this rate to match Sycamore \u2019 s extra qubits ? for the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits ?"] "
thousands of times ["Q-0149 Who had a special way to solve the specific quantum problem Google had chosen but that Summit can not scale if Google \u2019 s Sycamore goes from 53 to 60 qubits Ibm will require 33 summits ; if to 70 qubits a super computer the size of a city ! why does summit have to increase at this rate to match Sycamore \u2019 s extra qubits ? for the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits ?"] "
quantum problem ["Q-0150 Who had chosen but that Summit can not scale if Google \u2019 s Sycamore goes from 53 to 60 qubits Ibm will require 33 summits ; if to 70 qubits a super computer the size of a city ! why does summit have to increase at this rate to match Sycamore \u2019 s extra qubits ? for the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits ?"] "
thousands of times ["Q-0151 Who can not scale if Google \u2019 s Sycamore goes from 53 to 60 qubits Ibm will require 33 summits ; if to 70 qubits a super computer the size of a city ! why does summit have to increase at this rate to match Sycamore \u2019 s extra qubits ? for the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits ?"] "
Google\u2019s Sycamore ["Q-0152 Who goes from 53 to 60 qubits Ibm will require 33 summits ; if to 70 qubits a super computer the size of a city ! why does summit have to increase at this rate to match Sycamore \u2019 s extra qubits ? for the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits ?"] "
53 to 60 qubits IBM ["Q-0153 Who will require 33 summits ; if to 70 qubits a super computer the size of a city ! why does summit have to increase at this rate to match Sycamore \u2019 s extra qubits ? for the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits ?"] "
Summit ["Q-0154 Who have to increase at this rate to match Sycamore \u2019 s extra qubits ? for the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits ?"] "
quantum supremacy Google ["Q-0155 Who chose the simulation of quantum circuits ?"] "
53 ["Q-0156 The key issue is not that Summit had a special way to solve the specific quantum problem Google had chosen but that Summit can not scale if Google \u2019 s from how much does sycamore goes to 60 qubits Ibm will require 33 summits ; if to 70 qubits a super computer the size of a city ! why does summit have to increase at this rate to match Sycamore \u2019 s extra qubits ? for the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits ?"] "
13.25 billion dollars ["Q-0157 ]
reasonable time ["Q-0158 In what the resources \u2013 disk space memory computing power \u2013 computing to solve this problem by classical computers increases exponentially with size of the problem ?"] "
classical computers ["Q-0159 By what the resources \u2013 disk space memory computing power \u2013 computing to solve this problem in reasonable time increases exponentially with size of the problem ?"] "
classical computers ["Q-0160 The resources \u2013 disk space memory computing power \u2013 requited to solve this problem in reasonable time by with what exponentially of the problem ?"] "
classical computers ["Q-0161 The resources \u2013 disk space memory computing power \u2013 requited to solve this problem in reasonable time by of what exponentially with size ?"] "
classical computers solution time for a certain class ["Q-0162 What the resources \u2013 disk space memory computing computing requited to solve this problem in reasonable time by classical computers increases exponentially with size of the problem ?"] "
requited ["Q-0163 What the resources \u2013 disk space memory computing power \u2013 computing to solve in reasonable time by classical computers increases exponentially with size of the problem ?"] "
disk space memory ["Q-0164 Who computing time by classical computers increases to solve this problem in reasonable time by classical computers increases exponentially with size of the problem ?"] "
Summit have to increase at this rate to match Sycamore\u2019s extra qubits? For the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits. The resources \u2013 disk space memory computing power \u2013 requited to solve this problem in reasonable time by classical computers increases exponentially with size of the problem. For quantum computers adding qubits linearly \u2013 meaning simply adding more qubits \u2013 increases its computing capacity exponentially. Just extra 7 qubits of Sycamore needs IBM to increase the size of Summit 33 times; 17-qubit increase of Sycamore needs Summit to increase thousands of times. This is the key difference between Summit and Sycamore.\u00a0 For each extra qubit a conventional computer will have to scale its resources exponentially and this is a losing game for the conventional computer.Therefore we have to give Google the \u201cvictory\u201d here not because IBM is wrong but the principle of quantum supremacy that a q , classical computers increases exponentially with size of the problem " ["Q-0166 For what quantum computers adding adding linearly \u2013 meaning simply adding more qubits \u2013 increases its computing capacity exponentially ?"] "
classical computers ["Q-0167 For what quantum computers adding qubits linearly adding J more qubits \u2013 increases its computing capacity exponentially ?"] "
more qubits ["Q-0168 For quantum computers adding qubits linearly \u2013 meaning simply adding what qubits \u2013 N exponentially ?"] "
quantum computers ["Q-0169 Who adding adding more qubits \u2013 increases simply adding more qubits \u2013 increases its computing capacity exponentially ?"] "
quantum computers ["Q-0170 Who \u2013 adding its computing capacity exponentially ?"] "
17-qubit increase of Sycamore needs Summit to increase thousands of times. This is the key difference between Summit and Sycamore.\u00a0 For each extra qubit a conventional computer will have to scale its resources exponentially and this is a losing game for the conventional computer.Therefore we have to give Google the \u201cvictory\u201d here not because IBM is wrong but the principle of quantum supremacy that a quantum computer can really beat a conventional computer in computing a certain class of problems in reasonable time has been established. The actual demonstration \u2013 a more precise definition of reasonable time and its actual demonstration \u2013 is only of academic value. If a 53 qubit can solve the problem but with IBM\u2019s Summit still in the race even if much slower it is only a matter of time before we see it truly beaten.Of course there are other ways that this particular test could fail. A new algorithm can be discovered which solves this problem faster star , 17-qubit " ["Q-0172 Just extra 7 qubits of Sycamore needs Ibm to increase the size of Summit 33 times ; of what Summit to increase thousands ?"] "
increase ["Q-0173 Just extra 7 qubits of Sycamore what n n N N Ibm to increase the size of Summit 33 times ; 17-qubit increase of Sycamore n N to increase thousands of times ?"] "
17-qubit ["Q-0174 Just extra 7 qubits of Sycamore needs Ibm to increase the size of Summit 33 times ; what Summit to you N of times ?"] "
17-qubit increase of Sycamore needs Summit to increase thousands of times. This is the key difference between Summit and Sycamore.\u00a0 For each extra qubit a conventional computer will have to scale its resources exponentially and this is a losing game for the conventional computer.Therefore we have to give Google the \u201cvictory\u201d here not because IBM is wrong but the principle of quantum supremacy that a quantum computer can really beat a conventional computer in computing a certain class of problems in reasonable time has been established. The actual demonstration \u2013 a more precise definition of reasonable time and its actual demonstration \u2013 is only of academic value. If a 53 qubit can solve the problem but with IBM\u2019s Summit still in the race even if much slower it is only a matter of time before we see it truly beaten.Of course there are other ways that this particular test could fail. A new algorithm can be discovered which solves this problem faster star , between Summit " ["Q-0176 Where is this the key difference and Sycamore ?"] "
increase of Sycamore needs Summit to increase thousands of times ["Q-0177 What is this between Summit and Sycamore ?"] "
increase of Sycamore needs Summit to increase thousands of times ["Q-0178 Who is the key difference between Summit and Sycamore ?"] "
17-qubit increase of Sycamore needs Summit to increase thousands of times. This is the key difference between Summit and Sycamore.\u00a0 For each extra qubit a conventional computer will have to scale its resources exponentially and this is a losing game for the conventional computer.Therefore we have to give Google the \u201cvictory\u201d here not because IBM is wrong but the principle of quantum supremacy that a quantum computer can really beat a conventional computer in computing a certain class of problems in reasonable time has been established. The actual demonstration \u2013 a more precise definition of reasonable time and its actual demonstration \u2013 is only of academic value. If a 53 qubit can solve the problem but with IBM\u2019s Summit still in the race even if much slower it is only a matter of time before we see it truly beaten.Of course there are other ways that this particular test could fail. A new algorithm can be discovered which solves this problem faster star , Summit and Sycamore " ["Q-0180 For each extra qubit a conventional computer will have to scale its resources exponentially for what is and this a losing game ?"] "
a conventional computer will have to scale its resources ["Q-0181 For each extra qubit what will a conventional computer have to s N exponentially and this is a losing game for the conventional computer ?"] "
a losing game ["Q-0182 For each extra qubit a conventional computer will have to scale its resources exponentially what is and this for the conventional computer ?"] "
extra qubit a conventional computer ["Q-0183 Who will have to scale its resources exponentially and this is a losing game for the conventional computer ?"] "
Google the \u201cvictory\u201d here not because IBM ["Q-0184 Who is a losing game for the conventional computer ?"] "
billion dollars ["Q-0185 ]
IBM ["Q-0186 Therefore where do you have to give Google the \u201c victory \u201d here not is wrong but the principle of quantum supremacy that a quantum computer can really beat a conventional computer in computing a certain class of problems in reasonable time has been established ?"] "
quantum supremacy ["Q-0187 Therefore you have to give Google the \u201c victory \u201d here not of what is because Ibm wrong but the principle that a quantum computer can really beat a conventional computer in computing a certain class of problems in reasonable time has been established ?"] "
the principle of quantum supremacy ["Q-0188 Therefore you have to give Google the \u201c victory \u201d here not that what is because Ibm wrong but the principle of quantum supremacy can really beat a conventional computer in computing a certain class of problems in reasonable time has been established ?"] "
the principle of quantum supremacy ["Q-0189 Therefore you have to give Google the \u201c victory \u201d here not because Ibm is wrong but the principle of quantum supremacy that in what a quantum computer can really beat a conventional computer certain class of problems in reasonable time has been established ?"] "
a conventional computer in computing a certain class of problems ["Q-0190 Therefore you have to give Google the \u201c victory \u201d here not because Ibm is wrong but the principle of quantum supremacy that a quantum computer can really beat of what a conventional computer in computing computing a certain class in reasonable time has been established ?"] "
a conventional computer in computing a certain class of problems in reasonable time ["Q-0191 Therefore you have to give Google the \u201c victory \u201d here not because Ibm is wrong but the principle of quantum supremacy that a quantum computer can really beat in what a conventional computer in computing computing a certain class of problems has been established ?"] "
victory\u201d ["Q-0192 Therefore what do you have to give here not because Ibm is wrong but the principle of quantum supremacy that a quantum computer can really beat a conventional computer in computing a certain class of problems in reasonable time has been established ?"] "
conventional computer ["Q-0193 Therefore you have to give Google the \u201c victory \u201d here not because Ibm is wrong but the principle of quantum supremacy that what a quantum computer can really beat in computing a certain class of problems in reasonable time has been established ?"] "
a conventional computer in computing a certain class ["Q-0194 Therefore you have to give Google the \u201c victory \u201d here not because Ibm is wrong but the principle of quantum supremacy that a quantum computer can really beat what a conventional computer in computing computing of problems in reasonable time has been established ?"] "
the principle of quantum supremacy ["Q-0195 Therefore you have to give Google the \u201c victory \u201d here not because Ibm is wrong but the principle of quantum supremacy that a quantum computer can really beat a conventional computer in computing a certain class of problems in what has reasonable time been established ?"] "
the principle of quantum supremacy ["Q-0196 Who have to give Google the \u201c victory \u201d here not because Ibm is wrong but the principle of quantum supremacy that a quantum computer can really beat a conventional computer in computing a certain class of problems in reasonable time has been established ?"] "
IBM ["Q-0197 Who is wrong but the principle of quantum supremacy that a quantum computer can really beat a conventional computer in computing a certain class of problems in reasonable time has been established ?"] "
quantum computer ["Q-0198 Who can really beat a conventional computer in computing a certain class of problems in reasonable time has been established ?"] "
Quantum computers ["Q-0199 Who computing a certain class of problems in reasonable time has been established ?"] "
IBM ["Q-0200 Who has been established ?"] "
13.25 billion dollars ["Q-0201 ]
reasonable time ["Q-0202 Of what a more precise definition and its actual demonstration \u2013 is only of academic value ?"] "
academic value ["Q-0203 The actual demonstration \u2013 a more precise definition of reasonable time and its of what is actual demonstration \u2013 only ?"] "
IBM\u2019s Summit ["Q-0204 The actual demonstration \u2013 a more precise definition of reasonable time and whose actual demonstration \u2013 is only of academic value ?"] "
IBM will require 33 Summits; if to 70 Qubits a super computer the size of a city!Why does Summit have to increase at this rate to match Sycamore\u2019s extra qubits? For the demonstration of quantum supremacy Google chose the simulation of quantum circuits. The resources \u2013 disk space memory computing power \u2013 requited to solve this problem in reasonable time by classical computers increases exponentially with size of the problem. For quantum computers adding qubits linearly \u2013 meaning simply adding more qubits \u2013 increases its computing capacity exponentially. Just extra 7 qubits of Sycamore needs IBM to increase the size of Summit 33 times; 17-qubit increase of Sycamore needs Summit to increase thousands of times. This is the key difference between Summit and Sycamore.\u00a0 For each extra qubit a conventional computer will have to scale its resources exponentially and this is a losing game for the conventional computer.Therefore we have to give Google the \u201cv , 13.25 billion dollars " ["Q-0206 ]
IBM\u2019s Summit ["Q-0207 If a 53 where can qubit solve the problem but still in the race even if much slower it is only a matter of time before you see it truly beaten ?"] "
the race ["Q-0208 If a 53 in what can qubit solve the problem but with Ibm \u2019 s Summit still even if much slower it is only a matter of time before you see it truly beaten ?"] "
if much slower ["Q-0209 If a 53 if what can qubit solve the problem but with Ibm \u2019 s Summit still in the race even is only a matter of time before you see it truly beaten ?"] "
time ["Q-0210 If a 53 qubit can solve the problem but with Ibm \u2019 s Summit still in the race even if of what is slower it only a matter before you see it truly beaten ?"] "
we see it truly beaten ["Q-0211 If a 53 qubit can solve the problem but with Ibm \u2019 s Summit still in the race even if before whom is slower it only a matter of time see it truly beaten ?"] "
the problem ["Q-0212 If a 53 what can qubit solve but with Ibm \u2019 s Summit still in the race even if much slower it is only a matter of time before you see it truly beaten ?"] "
a matter ["Q-0213 If a 53 qubit can solve the problem but with Ibm \u2019 s Summit still in the race even if what is slower it of time before you see it truly beaten ?"] "
a matter ["Q-0214 If a 53 qubit can solve the problem but with Ibm \u2019 s Summit still in the race even if much slower it is only whom do a matter of time before you see truly beaten ?"] "
If a 53 qubit ["Q-0215 Who can solve the problem but with Ibm \u2019 s Summit still in the race even if much slower it is only a matter of time before you see it truly beaten ?"] "
IBM\u2019s Summit ["Q-0216 Who is only a matter of time before you see it truly beaten ?"] "
IBM\u2019s Summit ["Q-0217 Who see it truly beaten ?"] "
IBM\u2019s Summit ["Q-0218 Who truly beaten ?"] "
17-qubit increase of Sycamore needs Summit to increase thousands of times. This is the key difference between Summit and Sycamore.\u00a0 For each extra qubit a conventional computer will have to scale its resources exponentially and this is a losing game for the conventional computer.Therefore we have to give Google the \u201cvictory\u201d here not because IBM is wrong but the principle of quantum supremacy that a quantum computer can really beat a conventional computer in computing a certain class of problems in reasonable time has been established. The actual demonstration \u2013 a more precise definition of reasonable time and its actual demonstration \u2013 is only of academic value. If a 53 qubit can solve the problem but with IBM\u2019s Summit still in the race even if much slower it is only a matter of time before we see it truly beaten.Of course there are other ways that this particular test could fail. A new algorithm can be discovered which solves this problem faster star , particular test " ["Q-0220 Who could fail ?"] "
13.25 billion dollars ["Q-0221 ]
IBM\u2019s Summit ["Q-0222 What can a new algorithm be discovered which solves this problem faster starting a fresh race ?"] "
IBM\u2019s Summit ["Q-0223 What can a new algorithm be discovered which s N faster starting a fresh race ?"] "
a fresh race ["Q-0224 A new algorithm can be discovered which solves what this problem faster starting ?"] "
A new algorithm ["Q-0225 Who can be discovered which solves this problem faster starting a fresh race ?"] "
IBM\u2019s Summit still in the race even if much slower it is only a matter of time before we see it truly beaten.Of course there are other ways that this particular test could fail. A new algorithm can be discovered which solves this problem ["Q-0226 Who faster starting a fresh race ?"] "
17-qubit increase of Sycamore needs Summit to increase thousands of times. This is the key difference between Summit and Sycamore.\u00a0 For each extra qubit a conventional computer will have to scale its resources exponentially and this is a losing game for the conventional computer.Therefore we have to give Google the \u201cvictory\u201d here not because IBM is wrong but the principle of quantum supremacy that a quantum computer can really beat a conventional computer in computing a certain class of problems in reasonable time has been established. The actual demonstration \u2013 a more precise definition of reasonable time and its actual demonstration \u2013 is only of academic value. If a 53 qubit can solve the problem but with IBM\u2019s Summit still in the race even if much slower it is only a matter of time before we see it truly beaten.Of course there are other ways that this particular test could fail. A new algorithm can be discovered which solves this problem faster star , fresh race " ["Q-0228 But the principle is not in what computing a specific race but the way quantum computing will scale certain class of problems that classical or conventional computers can \u2019 t ?"] "
problems ["Q-0229 But the principle is not a specific race but the way quantum computing will scale of what in solving solving a certain class that classical or conventional computers can \u2019 t ?"] "
missing the big picture ["Q-0230 What is but the principle specific race but the way quantum computing will scale in solving a certain class of problems that classical or conventional computers can \u2019 t ?"] "
a certain class ["Q-0231 But the principle is not a specific race but the way quantum computing will scale what in solving solving of problems that classical or conventional computers can \u2019 t ?"] "
classical ["Q-0232 But the principle is not a specific race but the way quantum computing will scale in solving a certain class of problems that classical or can conventional computers \u2019 ?"] "
the principle ["Q-0233 Who is not a specific race but the way quantum computing will scale in solving a certain class of problems that classical or conventional computers can \u2019 t ?"] "
quantum computing ["Q-0234 Who computing will scale in solving a certain class of problems that classical or conventional computers can \u2019 t ?"] "
quantum computing ["Q-0235 Who solving a certain class of problems that classical or conventional computers can \u2019 t ?"] "
IBM ["Q-0236 Who can \u2019 t ?"] "
17-qubit increase of Sycamore needs Summit to increase thousands of times. This is the key difference between Summit and Sycamore.\u00a0 For each extra qubit a conventional computer will have to scale its resources exponentially and this is a losing game for the conventional computer.Therefore we have to give Google the \u201cvictory\u201d here not because IBM is wrong but the principle of quantum supremacy that a quantum computer can really beat a conventional computer in computing a certain class of problems in reasonable time has been established. The actual demonstration \u2013 a more precise definition of reasonable time and its actual demonstration \u2013 is only of academic value. If a 53 qubit can solve the problem but with IBM\u2019s Summit still in the race even if much slower it is only a matter of time before we see it truly beaten.Of course there are other ways that this particular test could fail. A new algorithm can be discovered which solves this problem faster star , a race " ["Q-0238 The key issue in creating with what viable quantum computers should not be confused between classical computers and the new kid on the block the quantum computers ?"] "
classical computers ["Q-0239 The key issue in creating between what viable quantum computers should not be confused with a race and the new kid on the block the quantum computers ?"] "
quantum computers ["Q-0240 The key issue in creating on what viable quantum computers should not be confused with a race between classical computers and the new kid ?"] "
quantum supremacy ["Q-0241 What the key issue in creating creating should not be confused with a race between classical computers and the new kid on the block the quantum computers ?"] "
quantum supremacy ["Q-0242 The key issue in creating what viable quantum computers should not be confused with a race between classical computers and the new kid on the block the quantum computers ?"] "
The key issue ["Q-0243 Who creating viable quantum computers should not be confused with a race between classical computers and the new kid on the block the quantum computers ?"] "
viable quantum computers ["Q-0244 Who should not be confused with a race between classical computers and the new kid on the block the quantum computers ?"] "
17-qubit increase of Sycamore needs Summit to increase thousands of times. This is the key difference between Summit and Sycamore.\u00a0 For each extra qubit a conventional computer will have to scale its resources exponentially and this is a losing game for the conventional computer.Therefore we have to give Google the \u201cvictory\u201d here not because IBM is wrong but the principle of quantum supremacy that a quantum computer can really beat a conventional computer in computing a certain class of problems in reasonable time has been established. The actual demonstration \u2013 a more precise definition of reasonable time and its actual demonstration \u2013 is only of academic value. If a 53 qubit can solve the problem but with IBM\u2019s Summit still in the race even if much slower it is only a matter of time before we see it truly beaten.Of course there are other ways that this particular test could fail. A new algorithm can be discovered which solves this problem faster star , between two classes " ["Q-0246 As what do if you see the race of computers in solving a specific problem you are missing the big picture ?"] "
computers ["Q-0247 Of what do if you see the race as between two classes in solving a specific problem you are missing the big picture ?"] "
solving ["Q-0248 In what do if you see the race as between two classes of computers specific problem you are missing the big picture ?"] "
race ["Q-0249 What do if you see as between two classes of computers in solving a specific problem you are missing the big picture ?"] "
classical ["Q-0250 If you see the race as between two what classes of computers in solving solving are missing the big picture ?"] "
the big picture ["Q-0251 If you see the race as between two classes of computers in solving what are a specific problem you missing ?"] "
IBM\u2019s Summit ["Q-0252 Who see the race as between two classes of computers in solving a specific problem you are missing the big picture ?"] "
two classes of computers ["Q-0253 Who solving a specific problem you are missing the big picture ?"] "
between two classes of computers ["Q-0254 Who are missing the big picture ?"] "
between two ["Q-0255 As how much do if you see the race classes of computers in solving a specific problem you are missing the big picture ?"] "
17-qubit increase of Sycamore needs Summit to increase thousands of times. This is the key difference between Summit and Sycamore.\u00a0 For each extra qubit a conventional computer will have to scale its resources exponentially and this is a losing game for the conventional computer.Therefore we have to give Google the \u201cvictory\u201d here not because IBM is wrong but the principle of quantum supremacy that a quantum computer can really beat a conventional computer in computing a certain class of problems in reasonable time has been established. The actual demonstration \u2013 a more precise definition of reasonable time and its actual demonstration \u2013 is only of academic value. If a 53 qubit can solve the problem but with IBM\u2019s Summit still in the race even if much slower it is only a matter of time before we see it truly beaten.Of course there are other ways that this particular test could fail. A new algorithm can be discovered which solves this problem faster star , classical computers solution time " ["Q-0257 That what is it simply for a certain class of problems increases exponentially with the size of the problem and beyond a certain size you just can \u2019 t solve them in any reasonable time ?"] "
a certain class ["Q-0258 For what is it simply that for classical computers solution time of problems increases exponentially with the size of the problem and beyond a certain size you just can \u2019 t solve them in any reasonable time ?"] "
the big picture ["Q-0259 Of what is it simply that for classical computers solution time for a certain class exponentially with the size of the problem and beyond a certain size you just can \u2019 t solve them in any reasonable time ?"] "
the size ["Q-0260 With what is it simply that for classical computers solution time for a certain class of problems increases exponentially of the problem and beyond a certain size you just can \u2019 t solve them in any reasonable time ?"] "
size of the problem ["Q-0261 Of what is it simply that for classical computers solution time for a certain class of problems increases exponentially with the size and beyond a certain size you just can \u2019 t solve them in any reasonable time ?"] "
the big picture ["Q-0262 Beyond what is it simply that for classical computers solution time for a certain class of problems increases exponentially with the size of the problem and just can \u2019 t solve them in any reasonable time ?"] "
in any reasonable time ["Q-0263 It is simply that for classical computers solution time for a certain class of problems increases exponentially with the size of the problem and beyond in what can a certain size you just \u2019 t solve them ?"] "
the big picture ["Q-0264 It is simply that for classical computers solution time for a certain class of problems increases exponentially with the size of the problem and beyond whom can a certain size you just \u2019 t solve in any reasonable time ?"] "
the big picture ["Q-0265 Who is simply that for classical computers solution time for a certain class of problems increases exponentially with the size of the problem and beyond a certain size you just can \u2019 t solve them in any reasonable time ?"] "
Quantum computers ["Q-0266 Who just can \u2019 t solve them in any reasonable time ?"] "
17-qubit increase of Sycamore needs Summit to increase thousands of times. This is the key difference between Summit and Sycamore.\u00a0 For each extra qubit a conventional computer will have to scale its resources exponentially and this is a losing game for the conventional computer.Therefore we have to give Google the \u201cvictory\u201d here not because IBM is wrong but the principle of quantum supremacy that a quantum computer can really beat a conventional computer in computing a certain class of problems in reasonable time has been established. The actual demonstration \u2013 a more precise definition of reasonable time and its actual demonstration \u2013 is only of academic value. If a 53 qubit can solve the problem but with IBM\u2019s Summit still in the race even if much slower it is only a matter of time before we see it truly beaten.Of course there are other ways that this particular test could fail. A new algorithm can be discovered which solves this problem faster star , solving " ["Q-0268 For what do quantum computers have the potential such problems in a reasonable time therefore opening the door for computing such problems ?"] "
reasonable time ["Q-0269 Quantum computers have in what the potential for solving solving such problems therefore opening the door for computing such problems ?"] "
opening the door ["Q-0270 Quantum computers have therefore what the potential for solving solving such problems in a reasonable time for computing such problems ?"] "
computing ["Q-0271 Quantum computers have the potential for solving such problems in for what the door such problems ?"] "
potential ["Q-0272 What do quantum computers have for solving such problems in a reasonable time therefore opening the door for computing such problems ?"] "
the size of the problem ["Q-0273 Quantum computers have what the potential for solving solving in a reasonable time therefore opening the door for computing such problems ?"] "
the size of the problem ["Q-0274 Quantum computers have what the potential for solving solving such problems in a reasonable time therefore opening for computing such problems ?"] "
classical computers solution time for a certain class of problems increases exponentially with the size of the problem and beyond a certain size we just can\u2019t solve them in any reasonable time. Quantum computers have the potential for solving such problems in a reasonable time therefore opening the door for computing such problems.Are there such problems and will they yield worthwhile technological applications ["Q-0275 Quantum computers have the potential for solving such problems in what a reasonable time therefore opening the door for computing opening ?"] "
17-qubit increase of Sycamore needs Summit to increase thousands of times. This is the key difference between Summit and Sycamore.\u00a0 For each extra qubit a conventional computer will have to scale its resources exponentially and this is a losing game for the conventional computer.Therefore we have to give Google the \u201cvictory\u201d here not because IBM is wrong but the principle of quantum supremacy that a quantum computer can really beat a conventional computer in computing a certain class of problems in reasonable time has been established. The actual demonstration \u2013 a more precise definition of reasonable time and its actual demonstration \u2013 is only of academic value. If a 53 qubit can solve the problem but with IBM\u2019s Summit still in the race even if much slower it is only a matter of time before we see it truly beaten.Of course there are other ways that this particular test could fail. A new algorithm can be discovered which solves this problem faster star , quantum circuits " ["Q-0277 Are there such problems and will they yield worthwhile technological applications ? of what the first problem chosen computing computing the future states were not chosen for any practical application ?"] "
any practical application ["Q-0278 Are there such problems and will they yield worthwhile technological applications ? the first problem chosen computing the future states of for what were quantum circuits not chosen ?"] "
Quantum computers ["Q-0279 Are whom there such problems and will yield worthwhile technological applications ? the first problem chosen computing the future states of quantum circuits were not chosen for any practical application ?"] "
yield worthwhile technological applications ["Q-0280 Are there such problems and will what they y N ? the first problem chosen computing the future states of quantum circuits were not chosen for any practical application ?"] "
the future states ["Q-0281 Are there such problems and will they yield worthwhile technological applications ? what the first problem chosen computing computing of quantum circuits were not chosen for any practical application ?"] "
not chosen ["Q-0282 Are there such problems and will they yield worthwhile technological applications ? the first problem chosen computing the future states of what were quantum circuits for any practical application ?"] "
Quantum computers ["Q-0283 Who will they yield worthwhile technological applications ? the first problem chosen computing the future states of quantum circuits were not chosen for any practical application ?"] "
Quantum computers ["Q-0284 Who yield worthwhile technological applications ? the first problem chosen computing the future states of quantum circuits were not chosen for any practical application ?"] "
The first problem ["Q-0285 Who computing the future states of quantum circuits were not chosen for any practical application ?"] "
computing the future states of quantum circuits ["Q-0286 Who were not chosen for any practical application ?"] "
17-qubit increase of Sycamore needs Summit to increase thousands of times. This is the key difference between Summit and Sycamore.\u00a0 For each extra qubit a conventional computer will have to scale its resources exponentially and this is a losing game for the conventional computer.Therefore we have to give Google the \u201cvictory\u201d here not because IBM is wrong but the principle of quantum supremacy that a quantum computer can really beat a conventional computer in computing a certain class of problems in reasonable time has been established. The actual demonstration \u2013 a more precise definition of reasonable time and its actual demonstration \u2013 is only of academic value. If a 53 qubit can solve the problem but with IBM\u2019s Summit still in the race even if much slower it is only a matter of time before we see it truly beaten.Of course there are other ways that this particular test could fail. A new algorithm can be discovered which solves this problem faster star , a problem " ["Q-0288 It was simply chosen to showcase as what did quantum supremacy defined that a classical computer can not solve in reasonable time ?"] "
classical computer ["Q-0289 It was simply chosen to showcase quantum supremacy defined that what as a quantum computer solving solving a problem can not solve in reasonable time ?"] "
quantum circuits ["Q-0290 It was simply chosen to showcase quantum supremacy defined as a quantum computer solving a problem that in what a classical computer can not solve ?"] "
The first problem chosen computing the future states of quantum circuits ["Q-0291 What did it was to showcase quantum supremacy defined as a quantum computer solving a problem that a classical computer can not solve in reasonable time ?"] "
quantum supremacy ["Q-0292 What did it was simply chosen to s N defined as a quantum computer solving a problem that a classical computer can not solve in reasonable time ?"] "
quantum circuits ["Q-0293 It was simply chosen to showcase quantum supremacy defined what as a quantum computer solving solving that a classical computer can not solve in reasonable time ?"] "
quantum circuits ["Q-0294 Who was simply chosen to showcase quantum supremacy defined as a quantum computer solving a problem that a classical computer can not solve in reasonable time ?"] "
quantum supremacy ["Q-0295 Who defined as a quantum computer solving a problem that a classical computer can not solve in reasonable time ?"] "
quantum computer ["Q-0296 Who solving a problem that a classical computer can not solve in reasonable time ?"] "
conventional computer ["Q-0297 Who can not solve in reasonable time ?"] "
17-qubit increase of Sycamore needs Summit to increase thousands of times. This is the key difference between Summit and Sycamore.\u00a0 For each extra qubit a conventional computer will have to scale its resources exponentially and this is a losing game for the conventional computer.Therefore we have to give Google the \u201cvictory\u201d here not because IBM is wrong but the principle of quantum supremacy that a quantum computer can really beat a conventional computer in computing a certain class of problems in reasonable time has been established. The actual demonstration \u2013 a more precise definition of reasonable time and its actual demonstration \u2013 is only of academic value. If a 53 qubit can solve the problem but with IBM\u2019s Summit still in the race even if much slower it is only a matter of time before we see it truly beaten.Of course there are other ways that this particular test could fail. A new algorithm can be discovered which solves this problem faster star , Jianwei Pan " ["Q-0299 Recently by what did a chinese team led has a paper that shows another problem a Boson Sampling experiment with 20 photons can also be a pathway to show quantum supremacy ?"] "
20 photons ["Q-0300 Recently with what did a chinese team led by Jianwei Pan led a paper that shows another problem a Boson Sampling experiment can also be a pathway to show quantum supremacy ?"] "
a paper ["Q-0301 Recently what did a chinese team led by Jianwei Pan led that shows another problem a Boson Sampling experiment with 20 photons can also be a pathway to show quantum supremacy ?"] "
Boson Sampling experiment ["Q-0302 Recently what did a chinese team led by Jianwei Pan led a paper that shows with 20 photons can also be a pathway to show quantum supremacy ?"] "
a pathway ["Q-0303 Recently a chinese team led by Jianwei Pan has a paper that shows another problem a Boson Sampling experiment with 20 what photons can also be to show quantum supremacy ?"] "
quantum supremacy ["Q-0304 Recently a chinese team led by Jianwei Pan has a paper that shows another problem a Boson Sampling experiment with 20 what photons can also be a pathway to s N ?"] "
Jianwei Pan ["Q-0305 Who led that shows another p N a paper that shows another problem a Boson Sampling experiment with 20 photons can also be a pathway to show quantum supremacy ?"] "
Boson Sampling ["Q-0306 Who can also be a pathway to show quantum supremacy ?"] "
20 ["Q-0307 Recently with how much did a chinese team led by Jianwei Pan led a paper that shows another problem a Boson Sampling experiment photons can also be a pathway to show quantum supremacy ?"] "
17-qubit increase of Sycamore needs Summit to increase thousands of times. This is the key difference between Summit and Sycamore.\u00a0 For each extra qubit a conventional computer will have to scale its resources exponentially and this is a losing game for the conventional computer.Therefore we have to give Google the \u201cvictory\u201d here not because IBM is wrong but the principle of quantum supremacy that a quantum computer can really beat a conventional computer in computing a certain class of problems in reasonable time has been established. The actual demonstration \u2013 a more precise definition of reasonable time and its actual demonstration \u2013 is only of academic value. If a 53 qubit can solve the problem but with IBM\u2019s Summit still in the race even if much slower it is only a matter of time before we see it truly beaten.Of course there are other ways that this particular test could fail. A new algorithm can be discovered which solves this problem faster star , classical computers solution time for a certain class of problems increases exponentially with the size of the problem and beyond a certain size we just can\u2019t solve them in any reasonable time. Quantum computers have the potential for solving such problems in a reasonable time therefore opening the door for computing such problems.Are there such problems and will they yield worthwhile technological applications? The first problem chosen computing the future states of quantum circuits were not chosen for any practical application. It was simply chosen to showcase quantum supremacy defined as a quantum computer solving a problem that a classical computer cannot solve in reasonable time. Recently a Chinese team led by Jianwei Pan has a paper that shows another problem a Boson Sampling experiment with 20 photons can also be a pathway to show quantum supremacy " ["Q-0309 For what are these problems constructed not real world app
quantum computing works ["Q-0310 These problems are constructed not that what for showing showing real world applications but simply can potentially solve real world problems ?"] "
quantum supremacy ["Q-0311 What are these problems constructed not for showing real world applications but simply that quantum computing works can potentially solve real world problems ?"] "
real world applications ["Q-0312 These problems are constructed not what for showing showing but simply that quantum computing works can potentially solve real world problems ?"] "
quantum computing works ["Q-0313 These problems are constructed not for showing real world applications but simply what quantum that computing can potentially solve real world problems ?"] "
quantum computing works ["Q-0314 These problems are constructed not for showing real world applications but simply what works can potentially solve ?"] "
17-qubit increase of Sycamore needs Summit to increase thousands of times. This is the key difference between Summit and Sycamore.\u00a0 For each extra qubit a conventional computer will have to scale its resources exponentially and this is a losing game for the conventional computer.Therefore we have to give Google the \u201cvictory\u201d here not because IBM is wrong but the principle of quantum supremacy that a quantum computer can really beat a conventional computer in computing a certain class of problems in reasonable time has been established. The actual demonstration \u2013 a more precise definition of reasonable time and its actual demonstration \u2013 is only of academic value. If a 53 qubit can solve the problem but with IBM\u2019s Summit still in the race even if much slower it is only a matter of time before we see it truly beaten.Of course there are other ways that this particular test could fail. A new algorithm can be discovered which solves this problem faster star , simulating quantum mechanics and understanding that world better " ["Q-0316 What did provided you provided ?"] "
Jianwei Pan ["Q-0317 Who provided the r N the right problem ?"] "
17-qubit increase of Sycamore needs Summit to increase thousands of times. This is the key difference between Summit and Sycamore.\u00a0 For each extra qubit a conventional computer will have to scale its resources exponentially and this is a losing game for the conventional computer.Therefore we have to give Google the \u201cvictory\u201d here not because IBM is wrong but the principle of quantum supremacy that a quantum computer can really beat a conventional computer in computing a certain class of problems in reasonable time has been established. The actual demonstration \u2013 a more precise definition of reasonable time and its actual demonstration \u2013 is only of academic value. If a 53 qubit can solve the problem but with IBM\u2019s Summit still in the race even if much slower it is only a matter of time before we see it truly beaten.Of course there are other ways that this particular test could fail. A new algorithm can be discovered which solves this problem faster star , right problem " ["Q-0319 Of what is the question what are the class that can use quantum computers ? the first class of problems are the ones for which Feynman had postulated the quantum computers a simulation of the quantum world ?"] "
right problem ["Q-0320 Of what is the question what are the class of problems that can use quantum computers ? the first class are the ones for which Feynman had postulated the quantum computers a simulation of the quantum world ?"] "
the quantum world ["Q-0321 The question is what are the class of problems that can use quantum computers ? the first class of problems are the ones for which of what had Feynman postulated the quantum computers a simulation ?"] "
right problem.The question is what are the class of problems that can use quantum computers?The first class of problems are the ones for which Feynman had postulated the quantum computers a simulation of the quantum world. Why do we need such simulations as after all we live in the macro-world in which quantum effects are not visible to us? The right word is visible to us but they are all around us in different ways ["Q-0322 What is the question what are of problems that can use quantum computers ? the first class of problems are the ones for which Feynman had postulated the quantum computers a simulation of the quantum world ?"] "
quantum computers?The ["Q-0323 What is the question what are the class of problems that can use ? the first class of problems are the ones for which Feynman had postulated the quantum computers a simulation of the quantum world ?"] "
right problem ["Q-0324 The question is what are the class of problems that can use quantum computers ? what are the first class of problems for which Feynman had postulated the quantum computers a simulation of the quantum world ?"] "
right problem ["Q-0325 The question is what are the class of problems that can use quantum computers ? the first class of problems are the ones for which what had Feynman postulated of the quantum world ?"] "
right problem ["Q-0326 Who is what are the class of problems that can use quantum computers ? the first class of problems are the ones for which Feynman had postulated the quantum computers a simulation of the quantum world ?"] "
first class of problems ["Q-0327 Who are the ones for which Feynman had postulated the quantum computers a simulation of the quantum world ?"] "
Feynman ["Q-0328 Who had postulated the quantum computers a simulation of the quantum world ?"] "
Democracy newsletter ["Q-0329 ]
The right word ["Q-0330 Why do you need such simulations as after all you live in the macro - world in which to whom are quantum effects not visible ? the right word is visible to us but they are all around us in different ways ?"] "
class of problems ["Q-0331 Why do you need such simulations as after all you live in the macro - world in which quantum effects are not visible to us ? to whom is the right word visible but they are all around us in different ways ?"] "
class of problems ["Q-0332 Why do as what you need such simulations live in the macro - world in which quantum effects are not visible to us ? the right word is visible to us but they are all around us in different ways ?"] "
macro-world ["Q-0333 Why do you need such simulations as after all you live in which quantum effects are not visible to us ? the right word is visible to us but they are all around us in different ways ?"] "
class of problems ["Q-0334 Why do you need such simulations as after all you live in the macro - world in which quantum effects are not visible to us ? the right word is visible to around whom are us but they all in different ways ?"] "
different ways ["Q-0335 Why do you need such simulations as after all you live in the macro - world in which quantum effects are not visible to us ? the right word is visible to in what are us but they all around us ?"] "
simulations ["Q-0336 Why do what you n N as after all you live in the macro - world in which quantum effects are not visible to us ? the right word is visible to us but they are all around us in different ways ?"] "
The right word ["Q-0337 Why do you need such simulations as after all you live in the macro - world in which quantum effects are not visible to us ? the right word is visible to what are us but they around us in different ways ?"] "
we ["Q-0338 Who need such simulations as after all you live in the macro - world in which quantum effects are not visible to us ? the right word is visible to us but they are all around us in different ways ?"] "
simulations ["Q-0339 Who live in the macro - world in which quantum effects are not visible to us ? the right word is visible to us but they are all around us in different ways ?"] "
quantum effects ["Q-0340 Who are not visible to us ? the right word is visible to us but they are all around us in different ways ?"] "
The right word ["Q-0341 Who is visible to us but they are all around us in different ways ?"] "
The right word ["Q-0342 Who are all around us in different ways ?"] "
Democracy newsletter ["Q-0343 ]
IBM Google ["Q-0344 That whom is it now clear using classical computers can not simulate for instance protein folding as it involves the quantum world intersecting the macro - world ?"] "
protein folding ["Q-0345 It is now clear using for what classical computers that you can not simulate as it involves the quantum world intersecting the macro - world ?"] "
The right word ["Q-0346 It is now clear using classical computers that you can not simulate as whom for instance protein folding folding involves the quantum world intersecting the macro - world ?"] "
The right word is visible to us but they are all around us in different ways.It is now clear using classical computers that we cannot simulate for instance protein folding as it involves the quantum world intersecting the macro-world. A quantum computer could simulate the probability of how many possible ways it could fold ["Q-0347 What is it classical computers that you can not simulate for instance protein folding as it involves the quantum world intersecting the macro - world ?"] "
the quantum world intersecting the macro-world ["Q-0348 It is now clear using classical computers that you can not simulate what for instance protein folding as it folding ?"] "
Democracy newsletter ["Q-0349 ]
the probability ["Q-0350 What could a quantum computer simulate of how many possible ways it could fold ?"] "
A quantum computer ["Q-0351 Who could simulate the probability of how many possible ways it could fold ?"] "
A quantum computer ["Q-0352 Who could fold ?"] "
Democracy newsletter ["Q-0353 ]
biologics ["Q-0354 This would allow us to build not only new materials but also as what did medicines known known and work out what are their actual medical pathways ?"] "
fold ["Q-0355 What would this allow to build not only new materials but also medicines known as biologics and work out what are their actual medical pathways ?"] "
fold ["Q-0356 What would this allow us to b N but also medicines known as biologics and work out what are their actual medical pathways ?"] "
fold ["Q-0357 This would allow us to build not only new materials but also what did medicines known as biologics and work known what are actual medical pathways ?"] "
fold ["Q-0358 Who would allow us to build not only new materials but also medicines known as biologics and work out what are their actual medical pathways ?"] "
biologics ["Q-0359 Who known to build not only n J what are their actual medical pathways ?"] "
13.25 billion dollars ["Q-0360 ]
discovery ["Q-0361 So of what could new complex chemicals be a field or new materials with complex molecules ?"] "
complex molecules ["Q-0362 So with what could new complex chemicals be a field of discovery or new materials ?"] "
medical pathways ["Q-0363 So what could new complex chemicals be of discovery or new materials with complex molecules ?"] "
complex chemicals ["Q-0364 Who could be a field of discovery or new materials with complex molecules ?"] "
13.25 billion dollars ["Q-0365 ]
13.25 billion dollars ["Q-0366 ]
gung-ho ["Q-0367 On what is the business world \u2013 Ibm Google \u2013 gung - ho of quantum computers for such applications and that is why they are all investing in it big time ?"] "
quantum computers ["Q-0368 Of what is the business world \u2013 Ibm Google \u2013 gung - ho on the possible use for such applications and that is why they are all investing in it big time ?"] "
applications ["Q-0369 For what is the business world \u2013 Ibm Google \u2013 gung - ho on the possible use of quantum computers and that is why they are all investing in it big time ?"] "
they are all investing in it big time ["Q-0370 The business world \u2013 Ibm Google \u2013 is gung - ho on the possible use of quantum computers for such applications and that is why in whom are they all investing big time ?"] "
all investing ["Q-0371 The business world \u2013 Ibm Google \u2013 is gung - ho on the possible use of quantum computers for such applications and that is why what are they in it big time ?"] "
IBM Google ["Q-0372 Who is gung - ho on the possible use of quantum computers for such applications and that is why they are all investing in it big time ?"] "
IBM Google ["Q-0373 Who is why they are all investing in it big time ?"] "
IBM Google ["Q-0374 Who are all investing in it big time ?"] "
17-qubit increase of Sycamore needs Summit to increase thousands of times. This is the key difference between Summit and Sycamore.\u00a0 For each extra qubit a conventional computer will have to scale its resources exponentially and this is a losing game for the conventional computer.Therefore we have to give Google the \u201cvictory\u201d here not because IBM is wrong but the principle of quantum supremacy that a quantum computer can really beat a conventional computer in computing a certain class of problems in reasonable time has been established. The actual demonstration \u2013 a more precise definition of reasonable time and its actual demonstration \u2013 is only of academic value. If a 53 qubit can solve the problem but with IBM\u2019s Summit still in the race even if much slower it is only a matter of time before we see it truly beaten.Of course there are other ways that this particular test could fail. A new algorithm can be discovered which solves this problem faster star , 17-qubit increase of Sycamore needs Summit to increase thousands of times. This is the key difference between Summit and Sycamore.\u00a0 For each extra qubit a conventional computer will have to scale its resources exponentially and this is a losing game for the conventional computer.Therefore we have to give Google the \u201cvictory\u201d here not because IBM is wrong but the principle of quantum supremacy that a quantum computer can really beat a conventional computer in computing a certain class of problems in reasonable time has been established. The actual demonstration \u2013 a more precise definition of reasonable time and its actual demonstration \u2013 is only of academic value. If a 53 qubit can solve the problem but with IBM\u2019s Summit still in the race even if much slower it is only a matter of time before we see it truly beaten.Of course there are other ways that this particular test could fail. A new algorithm can be discovered which solves this problem faster star
commercial benefits ["Q-0377 But supposing to what do quantum computers do not lead should you then abandon quantum computing ? if it is useful only for simulating quantum mechanics and understanding that world better ? Did you build the Hadron Collider investing 13 ?"] "
give us a window to the quantum world the benefits would be knowledge ["Q-0378 But supposing quantum computers do not lead to any commercial benefits should if whom you then abandon quantum computing ? is useful only for simulating quantum mechanics and understanding that world better ? Did you build the Hadron Collider investing 13 ?"] "
simulating quantum mechanics ["Q-0379 But supposing quantum computers do not lead to any commercial benefits should you then abandon quantum computing ? for what is if it useful only and understanding that world better ? Did you build the Hadron Collider investing 13 ?"] "
because we thought we will have discoveries that will have commercial value? Or should society invest in knowing the fundamental properties of space and time including that of the quantum world ["Q-0380 But supposing quantum computers do not lead to any commercial benefits should you then abandon quantum computing ? if it is useful only that what for simulating quantum mechanics and understanding simulating better ? Did you build the Hadron Collider investing 13 ?"] "
quantum computers ["Q-0381 What but supposing supposing do not lead to any commercial benefits should you then abandon quantum computing ? if it is useful only for simulating quantum mechanics and understanding that world better ? Did you build the Hadron Collider investing 13 ?"] "
give us a window to the quantum world the benefits would be knowledge ["Q-0382 But supposing quantum computers do not lead to whom any commercial benefits should then abandon quantum computing ? if it is useful only for simulating quantum mechanics and understanding that world better ? Did you build the Hadron Collider investing 13 ?"] "
knowledge ["Q-0383 But supposing quantum computers do not lead to what any commercial benefits should you then a J ? if it is useful only for simulating quantum mechanics and understanding that world better ? Did you build the Hadron Collider investing 13 ?"] "
give us a window to the quantum world the benefits would be knowledge ["Q-0384 But supposing quantum computers do not lead to any commercial benefits should you then abandon quantum computing ? if it is useful only what for simulating simulating and understanding that world better ? Did you build the Hadron Collider investing 13 ?"] "
the Hadron Collider investing 13.25 billion dollars ["Q-0385 But supposing quantum computers do not lead to any commercial benefits should you then abandon quantum computing ? if it is useful only for simulating quantum mechanics and understanding that world better ? what Did you build ?"] "
IBM Google ["Q-0386 Who supposing quantum computers do not lead to any commercial benefits should you then abandon quantum computing ? if it is useful only for simulating quantum mechanics and understanding that world better ? Did you build the Hadron Collider investing 13 ?"] "
supposing quantum computers ["Q-0387 Who do not lead to any commercial benefits should you then abandon quantum computing ? if it is useful only for simulating quantum mechanics and understanding that world better ? Did you build the Hadron Collider investing 13 ?"] "
commercial benefits ["Q-0388 Who should you then abandon quantum computing ? if it is useful only for simulating quantum mechanics and understanding that world better ? Did you build the Hadron Collider investing 13 ?"] "
IBM Google \u2013 is gung-ho on the possible use of quantum computers for such applications and that is why they are all investing in it big time. So are nation states notably the US and China.But supposing quantum computers ["Q-0389 Who then abandon quantum computing ? if it is useful only for simulating quantum mechanics and understanding that world better ? Did you build the Hadron Collider investing 13 ?"] "
IBM Google ["Q-0390 Who computing ? if it is useful only for simulating quantum mechanics and understanding that world better ? Did you build the Hadron Collider investing 13 ?"] "
IBM Google ["Q-0391 Who is useful only for simulating quantum mechanics and understanding that world better ? Did you build the Hadron Collider investing 13 ?"] "
quantum computers ["Q-0392 Who simulating not lead to any commercial benefits should that world better ? Did you build the Hadron Collider investing 13 ?"] "
IBM Google ["Q-0393 Who build the Hadron Collider investing 13 ?"] "
the Hadron Collider ["Q-0394 Who investing 13 ?"] "
13.25 billion dollars ["Q-0395 But supposing quantum computers do not lead to any commercial benefits should you then abandon quantum computing ? if it is useful only for simulating quantum mechanics and understanding that world better ? Did you build how much the Hadron Collider investing investing ?"] "
17-qubit increase of Sycamore needs Summit to increase thousands of times. This is the key difference between Summit and Sycamore.\u00a0 For each extra qubit a conventional computer will have to scale its resources exponentially and this is a losing game for the conventional computer.Therefore we have to give Google the \u201cvictory\u201d here not because IBM is wrong but the principle of quantum supremacy that a quantum computer can really beat a conventional computer in computing a certain class of problems in reasonable time has been established. The actual demonstration \u2013 a more precise definition of reasonable time and its actual demonstration \u2013 is only of academic value. If a 53 qubit can solve the problem but with IBM\u2019s Summit still in the race even if much slower it is only a matter of time before we see it truly beaten.Of course there are other ways that this particular test could fail. A new algorithm can be discovered which solves this problem faster star , benefits " ["Q-0397 25 billion dollars and an annual running cost of 1 billion dollars only because you thought you will have discoveries that will have commercial value ? or should society invest in knowing the fundamental properties of space and time including that of the quantum world ? even to what do if the quantum computers only give us a window would be knowledge ?"] "
knowing ["Q-0398 25 billion dollars and an annual running cost of 1 billion dollars only because you thought you will have discoveries that will have commercial value ? in what should or society invest fundamental properties of space and time including that of the quantum world ? even if the quantum computers only give us a window to the quantum world the benefits would be knowledge ?"] "
13.25 billion dollars and an annual running cost of 1 billion dollars only because we thought we will have discoveries that will have commercial value? Or should society ["Q-0399 25 billion dollars and an annual running cost of 1 billion dollars only because you thought you will have discoveries that will have commercial value ? or should society of what invest in knowing knowing the fundamental properties and time including that of the quantum world ? even if the quantum computers only give us a window to the quantum world the benefits would be knowledge ?"] "
that of the quantum world ["Q-0400 25 billion dollars and an annual running cost of 1 billion dollars only because you thought you will have discoveries that will have commercial value ? or should society invest in knowing that what the fundamental properties of space and time including including ? even if the quantum computers only give us a window to the quantum world the benefits would be knowledge ?"] "
13.25 billion dollars and an annual running cost of 1 billion dollars only because we thought we will have discoveries that will have commercial value? Or should society invest in knowing the fundamental properties of space and time including that of the quantum world? Even if the quantum computers ["Q-0401 25 billion dollars and an annual running cost of 1 billion dollars only because you thought you will have discoveries that will have commercial value ? or should society invest in knowing if what the fundamental properties of space and time including including that of the quantum world ? even only give us a window to the quantum world the benefits would be knowledge ?"] "
13.25 ["Q-0402 25 billion dollars and an annual running cost of 1 billion dollars only whom because you t N will have discoveries that will have commercial value ? or should society invest in knowing the fundamental properties of space and time including that of the quantum world ? even if the quantum computers only give us a window to the quantum world the benefits would be knowledge ?"] "
discoveries ["Q-0403 25 billion dollars and an annual running cost of 1 billion dollars only because you thought what will you have that will have commercial value ? or should society invest in knowing the fundamental properties of space and time including that of the quantum world ? even if the quantum computers only give us a window to the quantum world the benefits would be knowledge ?"] "
commercial value ["Q-0404 25 billion dollars and an annual running cost of 1 billion dollars only because you thought what will you have discoveries that will have ? or should society invest in knowing the fundamental properties of space and time including that of the quantum world ? even if the quantum computers only give us a window to the quantum world the benefits would be knowledge ?"] "
fundamental properties ["Q-0405 25 billion dollars and an annual running cost of 1 billion dollars only because you thought you will have discoveries that will have commercial value ? or should society what invest in knowing knowing of space and time including that of the quantum world ? even if the quantum computers only give us a window to the quantum world the benefits would be knowledge ?"] "
us a window ["Q-0406 25 billion dollars and an annual running cost of 1 billion dollars only because you thought you will have discoveries that will have commercial value ? or should society invest in knowing the fundamental properties of space and time including that of the quantum world ? even whom do if the quantum computers only give to the quantum world the benefits would be knowledge ?"] "
knowledge ["Q-0407 25 billion dollars and an annual running cost of 1 billion dollars only because you thought you will have discoveries that will have commercial value ? or should society invest in knowing the fundamental properties of space and time including that of the quantum world ? even if the quantum computers only give us a window to what would the quantum world the benefits be ?"] "
IBM Google \u2013 is gung-ho on the possible use of quantum computers for such applications and that is why they are all investing in it big time. So are nation states notably the US and China.But supposing quantum computers do not lead to any commercial benefits should we then abandon quantum computing? If it is useful only for simulating quantum mechanics and understanding that world better? Did we build the Hadron Collider investing 13.25 billion dollars and an annual running cost of 1 billion dollars ["Q-0408 Who thought you will have discoveries that will have commercial value ? or should society invest in knowing the fundamental properties of space and time including that of the quantum world ? even if the quantum computers only give us a window to the quantum world the benefits would be knowledge"
1 billion dollars ["Q-0409 Who will have discoveries that will have commercial value ? or should society invest in knowing the fundamental properties of space and time including that of the quantum world ? even if the quantum computers only give us a window to the quantum world the benefits would be knowledge ?"] "
commercial value ["Q-0410 Who should society invest in knowing the fundamental properties of space and time including that of the quantum world ? even if the quantum computers only give us a window to the quantum world the benefits would be knowledge ?"] "
commercial value ["Q-0411 Who knowing the fundamental properties of space and time including that of the quantum world ? even if the quantum computers only give us a window to the quantum world the benefits would be knowledge ?"] "
IBM Google \u2013 is gung-ho on the possible use of quantum computers for such applications and that is why they are all investing in it big time. So are nation states notably the US and China ["Q-0412 Who including that of the quantum world ? even if the quantum computers only give us a window to the quantum world the benefits would be knowledge ?"] "
quantum computers ["Q-0413 Who only give us a window to the quantum world the benefits would be knowledge ?"] "
a window to the quantum world the benefits ["Q-0414 Who would be knowledge ?"] "
13.25 billion dollars ["Q-0415 ]
13.25 billion dollars ["Q-0416 ]