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

21–30 of 34 posts

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

#21

Post by rnrn »

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 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

Forming a conductive channel in silicon in any FET and semiconductivity in general is an inherently quantum effect too, right?

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

#22

Post by dreamcompiler »

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…

Thanks. The flawed superscripting was bugging me too. Easily detectable but a reviewer should have caught it before publication.

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

#23

Post by dreamcompiler »

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).

One of the few genuinely useful accomplishments of modern "AI" has been protein structure prediction. I wonder if we still even need QC for this.

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

#24

Post by pclmulqdq »

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.

If you want O($10 billion per year) of funding, those numbers can only come from having $10 billion a year of impact balanced against your chance of success. The only application of QC worth $100+ billion is breaking cryptography.

PQC is as much a tool to reduce funding for QC as it is a tool against an actual eventual quantum computer.

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

#26

Post by wasabi991011 »

DoctorOetker wrote: post #15
wasabi991011 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Cool stuff and thanks for the link, I'll have to learn about it when I have a bit more time.

I've always heard Qalgs for chemistry compared to classical methods though. Why do you think chemists are using CCSD and similar methods rather than the FT-ICR mass spectroscopy?

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

#27

Post by upofadown »

rnrn wrote: post #21
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 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 Forming a conductive channel in silicon in any FET and semiconductivity in general is an inherently quantum effect too, right?

Traditionally I don't think it was considered to be specially a quantum effect. That, again was because bipolar transistors specifically work over a quantum band gap ... and bipolar transistors proceeded mosfets.

So only a quantum effect to the extent all effects are at some level quantum.

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

#28

Post by jfyi »

jojobas wrote: post #6

>We use the UK form “factorise” here in place of the US variants “factorize” or “factor” in order to avoid the 40% tariff on the US term Brilliant.

Yeah, they are really on point...

>Similarly, we refer to an abacus as “an abacus” rather than a digital computer, despite the fact that it relies on digital manipulation to effect its computations.

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

#29

Post by earleybird »

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 checked in with Scribble as he did the typesetting. He apologizes for the error but says working without opposable thumbs makes the work more challenging.

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

#30

Post by adgjlsfhk1 »

earleybird wrote: post #29
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 checked in with Scribble as he did the typesetting. He apologizes for the error but says working without opposable thumbs makes the work more challenging.

I have some ethical concerns here. footnote 6 clearly states that Scribble did not do enough work to merit coauthor credit, but if he was one of the primary researches for section 5 of the paper and was responsible for typesetting the entire paper, denying such a good boy sufficient credit for his work is a serious breach of scientific standards.
Post reply on HN