11–20 of 36 posts
What does this article really ‘reality check’? The editor’s understanding of quantum computing?
The first generation of Quantum Computers are nothing more than a huge scientific experiment.
What does this article really ‘reality check’? The editor’s understanding of quantum computing?
I understand that this is the frontier and no one has any definite answers, but I hear everything from "trivial" improvements to "insta-crack AES-256" (thousands of trillion trillion trillion trillions times faster).
Does anyone have a well informed upper/lower bound estimate?
I'm disappointed that this article doesn't answer my only real question about quantum computers: What does a reasonable expectation look like? What is the range of potential performance gains? I understand that this is the frontier and no one has any definite answers, but I hear everything from "trivial" improvements to "insta-crack AES-256" (thousands of trillion trillion trillion trillions times faster). Does anyon…
Frank Anthony Wilczek (/ˈwɪltʃɛk/;[2] born May 15, 1951) is an American theoretical physicist, mathematician and a Nobel laureate. He is currently the Herman Feshbach Professor of Physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Founding Director of T. D. Lee Institute and Chief Scientist Wilczek Quantum Center, Shanghai Jiao Tong University (SJTU), Distinguished Origins Professor at Arizona State University (ASU) and full Professor at Stockholm University.
I'm disappointed that this article doesn't answer my only real question about quantum computers: What does a reasonable expectation look like? What is the range of potential performance gains? I understand that this is the frontier and no one has any definite answers, but I hear everything from "trivial" improvements to "insta-crack AES-256" (thousands of trillion trillion trillion trillions times faster). Does anyon…
O(exp(1.9 * (log n)^(1/3) (log log n)^(2/3)))
But unless I tell you how fast each gate is, that tells you nothing about the constant time factors.
Also, all these quantum algorithms are constructed out of logical gates, but each logical gate might be built out of 10 physical gates, using some error correcting code.
Since you really need to know the physical characteristics of the particular architecture to know how much error correction you need, it's hard to even say how many gates something will use and how fast they are until we pick a particular architecture.
All we can really say is that given a big enough number, a quantum computer can factor it faster than a classic computer.
I'm disappointed that this article doesn't answer my only real question about quantum computers: What does a reasonable expectation look like? What is the range of potential performance gains? I understand that this is the frontier and no one has any definite answers, but I hear everything from "trivial" improvements to "insta-crack AES-256" (thousands of trillion trillion trillion trillions times faster). Does anyon…
There's a lot of research at the "P = BQP?", "NP I can tell you that Shor's algorithm for factoring takes O((log n)^2 (log log n)(log log log n)) (we can round that up to O((log n)^4) if you want) to a the best known classical algorithm of O(exp(1.9 * (log n)^(1/3) (log log n)^(2/3))) But unless I tell you how fast each gate is, that tells you nothing about the constant time factors. Also, all these quantum algorithm…
Iff quantum computing is only useful at breaking encryption, I don't see the point in funding quantum computing research.
I'm disappointed that this article doesn't answer my only real question about quantum computers: What does a reasonable expectation look like? What is the range of potential performance gains? I understand that this is the frontier and no one has any definite answers, but I hear everything from "trivial" improvements to "insta-crack AES-256" (thousands of trillion trillion trillion trillions times faster). Does anyon…
Improvements are believed to be exponential when simulating physical quantum systems.