Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The three triad sheets of the face-centered cubic (FCC) lattice, at even lattice size L, are edge-disjoint but share their vertex and octahedral-void ancilla positions. Running the three sheet codes in a three-round time-multiplexed cycle on one chip needs 4L3 physical qubits against 6L3 for three separate blocks, a saving of exactly one third at every L, for instance, 864 qubits instead of 1296 at L=6. The schedule is implemented explicitly, with all three sheets on one shared ancilla set; comparing it against the effective single-sheet model used for the parameter sweeps shows agreement to within 5% at L=4 and 2.2% at L=6. The cost of the saving is that each sheet idles for two of every three sub-rounds, and the finite-size crossing estimate of the circuit-level threshold falls from 1.13±0.08% to 0.86±0.06%: a factor of 1.3, that is a 24% relative reduction, or 0.27 percentage points. Sweeping the idle-to-gate noise ratio r over 0,1,2,4 gives estimates decreasing monotonically from 1.13% to 0.71%. The dual X-basis memory gives 0.78±0.05%, overlapping the Z value. All values are finite-size crossings at L=4,6,8 from the full FCC circuit, not asymptotic thresholds, and the quoted spreads are dominated by finite-size drift rather than statistical error. Each sheet decomposes exactly into L independent rotated 2D toric codes (Proposition 1), so the memory is the toric code’s and no encoding-rate advantage is claimed; at d=4, the rate equals the rotated toric code’s. In the simulated noise model, where no channel couples two sheets, the sheets fail independently. Sub-threshold suppression survives the sharing at Λ(4→6)=12.3±1.1 and Λ(6→8)=5.6±1.2 at p=10−3, on a memory carrying 24 to 48 logical qubits. Block-level failure probabilities are reported alongside, since they grow with the logical count: at L=6 and p=10−3, the 36-logical chip loses at least one logical qubit in about one experiment in sixty. The L=6 instance, [[648,36,6]], needs 864 physical qubits, within the nominal atom count of current neutral-atom processors; no implementability claim is made beyond that count.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Raghu Kulkarni (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: