21–30 of 61 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are there any sources you know of that discuss what kinds of problems can be solved faster with quantum computing? I'm curious about them.
Wikipedia has a fairly decent list of quantum algorithms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_algorithm Shor's algorithm being one of the standard examples of where quantum computing completely crushes classical computing.
"Quantum computers operate at speeds unattainable by even today’s most powerful supercomputers, operations that are so fast, they can process millions of calculations in a fraction of the months, even years, traditional computers take" God damn I hate bullshit lines like this used about QCs. The whole article is gives the usual misleading impression of QCs being generically faster than normal computers. They're not.…
> Quantum computers operate at speeds unattainable by even today’s most powerful supercomputers, operations that are so fast, they can process millions of calculations in a fraction of the months, even years, traditional computers take.
Quantum computers can carry out some algorithms which normal computers can't, which can be much faster, but they're not usable for general computing so this statement makes no sense.
> They can even be taught and can recognize objects in images, a task standard computers struggle with.
Er... what? I wouldn't say that standard computers can do vision easily, but it's a problem of finding the right algorithms, not computing power.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So does this mean Shor's Algorithm is going to kick in for real and ruin all our securityz? Nope. First, as I understand it, the D-Wave stuff isn't a system that can run Shor's. Second, Shor's only ruins security for a certain class of crypto algorithm. There are already algorithms that exist today that a proof against it (e.g the McEliece cryptosystem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McEliece_cryptosystem ). Third, if y…
People tend to equate asymmetric crypto with the likes of RSA; systems where the efficient factoring of large numbers is a death sentence. But there's a whole slew of other asymmetric cryptosystems without such properties, e.g. elliptic-curve cryptography.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People tend to equate asymmetric crypto with the likes of RSA; systems where the efficient factoring of large numbers is a death sentence. But there's a whole slew of other asymmetric cryptosystems without such properties, e.g. elliptic-curve cryptography.
Shors algorithm also breaks elliptic-curve cryptography.
D-Wave's advancements are very interesting to me for a few reasons. The first is that initially many people suspected D-Wave was a scam, because the most successful research efforts in quantum computing used just a few qubits, and D-Wave claimed a massive improvement (something like 128 or 256). Scott Aaronson ( http://www.scottaaronson.com ) was perhaps the most vocal critic. Over the years, the criticism has soften…
D-Wave's advancements are very interesting to me for a few reasons. The first is that initially many people suspected D-Wave was a scam, because the most successful research efforts in quantum computing used just a few qubits, and D-Wave claimed a massive improvement (something like 128 or 256). Scott Aaronson ( http://www.scottaaronson.com ) was perhaps the most vocal critic. Over the years, the criticism has soften…
Out of interest, when the chemically accurate simulations are made are there any surprises? Or do the estimations that are normally used good enough for most purposes?
D-Wave's advancements are very interesting to me for a few reasons. The first is that initially many people suspected D-Wave was a scam, because the most successful research efforts in quantum computing used just a few qubits, and D-Wave claimed a massive improvement (something like 128 or 256). Scott Aaronson ( http://www.scottaaronson.com ) was perhaps the most vocal critic. Over the years, the criticism has soften…
Is it possible that in the future rather than having a sort of general "quantum computer", something like quantum processors will be built for specific computing tasks? Each very different in config and unique, specifically designed and used for one thing and one thing only?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Out of interest, when the chemically accurate simulations are made are there any surprises? Or do the estimations that are normally used good enough for most purposes?
I'm not an expert on Comp Chem, but you might want to rephrase your question. If the simulation is "chemically accurate", of course it will match the real-world, by definition of "accurate"...
http://www.gromacs.org/About_Gromacs
The aim of my question was to see if chemically accurate simulations come up with significantly different answers or to see if the current way of doing things is a good enough approximation.