Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Replication of Quantum Factorisation Records with an 8-bit Home Computer [pdf]

eprint.iacr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 34 posts

Re: Replication of Quantum Factorisation Records with an 8-bit Home Computer [pdf]

#11

Post by rgbforge »

thrance wrote: post #10
wasabi991011 wrote: post #4

Yeah there's a reason that the quantum computing field has moved away from attempting factorisations. Not that there's not still hype and misleading claims being punished, but the hardware has improved a ton since 2001 and ever closer to actual useful quantum computation (such as large size quantum chemistry calculations).

Are those useful computations in the room with us right now? No, but seriously, I feel like factorization is the one application that could justify those massive investments QC is receiving (even though it would probably make the world strictly worse...). All those other applications, no matter how neat, I feel are quite niche. Like, "simulate pairs of electrons in the Ising model". Cool. Is that a multi-billion doll…

If results from methods with higher electronic structure accuracy than DFT (MP2, couple cluster) can be made cheap enough, it would hugely disrupt industrial chemistry, medical experimentation, pharmaceuticals, the energy sector, etc.

Re: Replication of Quantum Factorisation Records with an 8-bit Home Computer [pdf]

#12

Post by wasabi991011 »

thrance wrote: post #10
wasabi991011 wrote: post #4

Yeah there's a reason that the quantum computing field has moved away from attempting factorisations. Not that there's not still hype and misleading claims being punished, but the hardware has improved a ton since 2001 and ever closer to actual useful quantum computation (such as large size quantum chemistry calculations).

Are those useful computations in the room with us right now? No, but seriously, I feel like factorization is the one application that could justify those massive investments QC is receiving (even though it would probably make the world strictly worse...). All those other applications, no matter how neat, I feel are quite niche. Like, "simulate pairs of electrons in the Ising model". Cool. Is that a multi-billion doll…

Ground state and activation energy estimation for chemistry would be really useful. I know chemists are looking specifically at nitrogen fixation as one useful example.

Or as another example, I'm currently at a conference listening to a PhD student's research on biomolecular structure prediction (for protein design).

Re: Replication of Quantum Factorisation Records with an 8-bit Home Computer [pdf]

#14

Post by wasabi991011 »

Arcorann wrote: post #9

Somewhat related is the work done in "Falling with Style: Factoring up to 255 “with” a Quantum Computer" published in the proceedings of SIGBOVIK 2025 [1]. The author, Craig Gidney [2], successfully factored all odd composite numbers up to 255 using Shor's algorithm, even though the quantum circuits involved were such that any meaningful output would be overwhelmed by noise (and indeed, performance was maintained whe…

God, I've heard Gidney's name so many times in the QC conference I'm attending, and in my research the last few months.

I really hope he eventually gets the recognition he deserves, outside of just experts in the field.

Re: Replication of Quantum Factorisation Records with an 8-bit Home Computer [pdf]

#15

Post by DoctorOetker »

wasabi991011 wrote: post #12
thrance wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are those useful computations in the room with us right now? No, but seriously, I feel like factorization is the one application that could justify those massive investments QC is receiving (even though it would probably make the world strictly worse...). All those other applications, no matter how neat, I feel are quite niche. Like, "simulate pairs of electrons in the Ising model". Cool. Is that a multi-billion doll…

Ground state and activation energy estimation for chemistry would be really useful. I know chemists are looking specifically at nitrogen fixation as one useful example. Or as another example, I'm currently at a conference listening to a PhD student's research on biomolecular structure prediction (for protein design).

Energy levels and activation energies can be acquired much more simply from Fourier Transform - Ion Cyclotron Resonance - Mass Spectroscopy...

Its a device that makes and analyzes at the same time, check out this primer:

https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/chemistry/research/oconnor/oco...

Re: Replication of Quantum Factorisation Records with an 8-bit Home Computer [pdf]

#16

Post by upofadown »

thrance wrote: post #10
wasabi991011 wrote: post #4

Yeah there's a reason that the quantum computing field has moved away from attempting factorisations. Not that there's not still hype and misleading claims being punished, but the hardware has improved a ton since 2001 and ever closer to actual useful quantum computation (such as large size quantum chemistry calculations).

Are those useful computations in the room with us right now? No, but seriously, I feel like factorization is the one application that could justify those massive investments QC is receiving (even though it would probably make the world strictly worse...). All those other applications, no matter how neat, I feel are quite niche. Like, "simulate pairs of electrons in the Ising model". Cool. Is that a multi-billion doll…

Factorization could have number theory implications I suppose. Using quantum effects to break cryptography wouldn't have any real long term advantages unless you aspired to be some sort of a supervillain.

Re: Replication of Quantum Factorisation Records with an 8-bit Home Computer [pdf]

#17

Post by LeftHandPath »

upofadown wrote: post #16
thrance wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are those useful computations in the room with us right now? No, but seriously, I feel like factorization is the one application that could justify those massive investments QC is receiving (even though it would probably make the world strictly worse...). All those other applications, no matter how neat, I feel are quite niche. Like, "simulate pairs of electrons in the Ising model". Cool. Is that a multi-billion doll…

Factorization could have number theory implications I suppose. Using quantum effects to break cryptography wouldn't have any real long term advantages unless you aspired to be some sort of a supervillain.

> Using quantum effects to break cryptography wouldn't have any real long term advantages unless you aspired to be some sort of a supervillain.

It's of interest to governments, for national security reasons. Quantum computing is an arms race.

Re: Replication of Quantum Factorisation Records with an 8-bit Home Computer [pdf]

#18

Post by upofadown »

>...6502 microprocessor from 1975. Since this processor uses transistors, and transistors work by using quantum effects, a 6502 is as much a quantum device as is a D-Wave “quantum computer”.

I'm not sure that is true in the way it is intended. The NMOS transistors used in the 6502 were quite large and worked on the basis of electrostatic charges ... as opposed to bipolar transistors that are inherently quantum in operation.

Of course it is now understood that everything that does anything is at some level dependent on quantum effects. That would include the dog...

Re: Replication of Quantum Factorisation Records with an 8-bit Home Computer [pdf]

#19

Post by adgjlsfhk1 »

tromp wrote: post #8

> In the Callas Normal Form, the factors are integers p = 2^{n-1} and q = 2^{m+1}, where n ≤ m, and p and q are ideally prime, but don’t have to be. The paper's formatting clearly went wrong here, as it should have read p = 2^n - 1 and q = 2^m + 1. The "Proposed Quantum Factorisation Evaluation Criteria" are excellent, but for measuring progress, the required minimum factor size of 64 bits is too large. A good milest…

I think 8 bit primes is probably a better minimum. 5 bits is still small enough that randomly choosing a 5 bit factor will succeed 40% of the time. This is especially problematic since Shor's algorithm only has a 50% success probability per round, so you need some extra bits to be able to distinguish a correctly working quantum computer from a random number generator.

Re: Replication of Quantum Factorisation Records with an 8-bit Home Computer [pdf]

#20

Post by jfengel »

upofadown wrote: post #18

>...6502 microprocessor from 1975. Since this processor uses transistors, and transistors work by using quantum effects, a 6502 is as much a quantum device as is a D-Wave “quantum computer”. I'm not sure that is true in the way it is intended. The NMOS transistors used in the 6502 were quite large and worked on the basis of electrostatic charges ... as opposed to bipolar transistors that are inherently quantum in ope…

The intention is to say that the D-Wave isn't a quantum computer at all. The comparison isn't quite literally true, but it's definitely the case that what D-Wave does is very different from the general purpose qubits that we mean when we say "quantum computer".
Post reply on HN