Large-scale quantum chip validated
news.usc.edu
Large-scale quantum chip validated
1–10 of 39 posts
Re: Large-scale quantum chip validated
#2Re: Large-scale quantum chip validated
#3Does this mean that I need to throw away my 2048-bit RSA key? Is 4096 bit at all safer than 2048 from quantum computing?
No speed up when compared to a classical machine (for much cheaper) emulating the exact same procedure:
Re: Large-scale quantum chip validated
#4Re: Large-scale quantum chip validated
#5Re: Large-scale quantum chip validated
#6Re: Large-scale quantum chip validated
#7Anyone know how they program these?.. something like QCL? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_programming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadratic_unconstrained_binary_...
Re: Large-scale quantum chip validated
#8Anyone know how they program these?.. something like QCL? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_programming
Re: Large-scale quantum chip validated
#9Does this mean that I need to throw away my 2048-bit RSA key? Is 4096 bit at all safer than 2048 from quantum computing?
The D-Wave processor probably isn't useful for cracking it. However, if you send RSA encrypted data, copies can be made of the encrypted data and cracked at a later date when better facilities or algorithms become available. If you wish to send a message that would make the NSA want to hunt you down and kill you if they decrypt it N years from now (and you plan to live >N years), you should probably be more careful. I don't think we have a good idea of what N is. It's probably pretty big, but it might not be.
Re: Large-scale quantum chip validated
#10Anyone know how they program these?.. something like QCL? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_programming
The machine solves QUBO problem. You program in the Q_ij and a set of X's is returned as answer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadratic_unconstrained_binary_...
What I don't fully understand is why is it so important to show that the device takes advantage of Quantum effects functionally? A classical super-efficient Ising Model solver is interesting enough.
Also, the video in the article is really quite terrible. I only half understood it because I know what they were trying to say, but if I didn't I think I'd be very confused at best, and amusingly misinformed at worst.