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

2025 Turing award given for quantum information science

awards.acm.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 50 posts

Re: 2025 Turing award given for quantum information science

#31

Post by NooneAtAll3 »

matthewdgreen wrote: post #20

I don't want to take anything away from Bennett and Brassard, but I'd like someone to spare a word for poor Stephen Wiesner, who invented the earliest quantum information-distribution protocols as far back as the 1960s and published them before Bennett and Brassard. He also invented Oblivious Transfer (OT) which is required for multi-party computation -- although his was a quantum protocol that demonstrated some of t…

> and I've since checked with an LLM

but did you recheck it yourself, or are you trusting unreliable narrator?

Re: 2025 Turing award given for quantum information science

#32

Post by NooneAtAll3 »

rramadass wrote: post #23
DrNosferatu wrote: post #6

The math might be beautiful, but I'm very skeptical - practical - quantum computers will ever deliver their promise.

Not sure what is going on in QC world; With this ACM prize it has become even more murky. As Sabine Hossenfelder (Theoretical Physicist) points out, companies to do with QC are seeing a surge in investments and marketing. It is as if somebody knows something that the "common public" doesn't - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBTS7JZTyZY I don't know enough about the science/technology to form an opinion but have recen…

> It is as if somebody knows something that the "common public" doesn't

oooorrr - and hear me out - investments are inherently hype-based and irrational and there is too much money flying around to do actual smart decisions

Re: 2025 Turing award given for quantum information science

#33

Post by aleph_minus_one »

dogtimeimmortal wrote: post #18
aleph_minus_one wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I felt this was a much better layman explanation of what a quantum computer does than simply saying a quantum computer runs all possible paths in parallel. Relevant concerning your point: > "The Talk" > https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/the-talk-3

Thanks for this! I guess i need to read up on Hilbert Space. ...and Shor's Algorithm

> ...and Shor's Algorithm

Better start with Simon's algorithm (solving Simon's problem) [0]; it already contains a lot of ideas that you need to understand Shor's algorithm, while not having a lot of technicalities. Then progress to Shor's algorithm, and then to Kitaev's algorithm [1] (link from [2]). The latter solves the Abelian stabilizer problem - this problem contains the more abstract mathematical essence of a lot of quantum algorithms.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon%27s_problem

[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9511026

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_subgroup_problem#Instan...

Re: 2025 Turing award given for quantum information science

#35

Post by aleph_minus_one »

kleiba wrote: post #34
layer8 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect the parent considers quantum computing science fiction.

A good opportunity to repost this: https://eprint.iacr.org/2025/1237.pdf

An opposite standpoint: Why it's so much harder to factor 21 on a quantum computer than 15: https://algassert.com/post/2500

Re: 2025 Turing award given for quantum information science

#36

Post by matthewdgreen »

NooneAtAll3 wrote: post #31
matthewdgreen wrote: post #20

I don't want to take anything away from Bennett and Brassard, but I'd like someone to spare a word for poor Stephen Wiesner, who invented the earliest quantum information-distribution protocols as far back as the 1960s and published them before Bennett and Brassard. He also invented Oblivious Transfer (OT) which is required for multi-party computation -- although his was a quantum protocol that demonstrated some of t…

> and I've since checked with an LLM but did you recheck it yourself, or are you trusting unreliable narrator?

I only checked the abstracts, and they seem consistent. Good LLMs (Claude Opus, ChatGPT Pro) still get things wrong regularly, but lately I've noticed these are mainly the deep details, not easy things like "there is a result that claims X."

Re: 2025 Turing award given for quantum information science

#37

Post by rramadass »

NooneAtAll3 wrote: post #32
rramadass wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure what is going on in QC world; With this ACM prize it has become even more murky. As Sabine Hossenfelder (Theoretical Physicist) points out, companies to do with QC are seeing a surge in investments and marketing. It is as if somebody knows something that the "common public" doesn't - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBTS7JZTyZY I don't know enough about the science/technology to form an opinion but have recen…

> It is as if somebody knows something that the "common public" doesn't oooorrr - and hear me out - investments are inherently hype-based and irrational and there is too much money flying around to do actual smart decisions

Nope.

Quantum Computing (QC) is unlike previous technologies which were all mostly "logical structures" (i.e. the underlying Physics/Technologies were well-known). The viability of both the core Physics itself and its realization through Technology for QC are questioned by some Physicists/Technologists themselves. But in 2024/2025 many Govts. and Companies both have started investing heavily in QC. Moreover the advanced countries have implemented export controls on QC technology prohibiting export of QC computers above 34-qubits.

And now the ACM prize for something done long ago in quantum information.

Finally note that QC algorithms can be simulated (for small size qubits) on conventional computers and the current AI technologies may also play a part here i.e. implement QC algorithms on the "Cloud supercomputer" and using AI technologies.

The logical inference is that there has been some technological (one or more) breakthrough in the realization of the QC qubits technologies, QC algorithms running efficiently on the cloud, AI usage for QC etc. Nothing else explains all of the above facts.

See also: The Case Against Quantum Computing by Mikhail Dyakonov (Professor of Physics) - https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-case-against-quantum-computing

Re: 2025 Turing award given for quantum information science

#38

Post by Q_is_4_Quantum »

abdullahkhalids wrote: post #25
matthewdgreen wrote: post #20

I don't want to take anything away from Bennett and Brassard, but I'd like someone to spare a word for poor Stephen Wiesner, who invented the earliest quantum information-distribution protocols as far back as the 1960s and published them before Bennett and Brassard. He also invented Oblivious Transfer (OT) which is required for multi-party computation -- although his was a quantum protocol that demonstrated some of t…

Don't forget about William Wootters, who also did significant work in the 1980s on quantum information. Most notably with Zurek, he proved the quantum no-cloning theorem in 1982. This result is at the same foundational level as energy conservation or constancy of light. He was also on the Teleportation discovery in 1993.

Asher Peres told me that Bill Wootters should be given 99% of the credit for the teleportation discovery (and this is in the context that most of us around at the time presumed the majority of the credit should go to Peres and Wootters who had already been discussing publicly very similar stuff).

Re: 2025 Turing award given for quantum information science

#39

Post by DrNosferatu »

Joel_Mckay wrote: post #17
DrNosferatu wrote: post #6

The math might be beautiful, but I'm very skeptical - practical - quantum computers will ever deliver their promise.

Forever is a long time, but I agree people that assert reality is the model are almost always incorrect eventually. There is some interesting work being done, but it will never match the excessive hype. =3 "The Genius of Computing with Light" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbxcd9gaims

I would say optical computing will be practical well before QC is.

Time will tell.

Re: 2025 Turing award given for quantum information science

#40

Post by NooneAtAll3 »

rramadass wrote: post #37
NooneAtAll3 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is as if somebody knows something that the "common public" doesn't oooorrr - and hear me out - investments are inherently hype-based and irrational and there is too much money flying around to do actual smart decisions

Nope. Quantum Computing (QC) is unlike previous technologies which were all mostly "logical structures" (i.e. the underlying Physics/Technologies were well-known). The viability of both the core Physics itself and its realization through Technology for QC are questioned by some Physicists/Technologists themselves. But in 2024/2025 many Govts. and Companies both have started investing heavily in QC. Moreover the advan…

> Quantum Computing (QC) is unlike previous technologies

aaand you entered the "hype and irrational" territory. I dare you to reread your own comment, it is funny

right now QC is 5 orders of magnitude away from practical systems - there's NO profit to invest for. It's all research that is being hyped and overpromised because there's not enough money in that sector and because established players (like google) don't want to lose their face

viability of core physics does not imply immediate creation of product. I'd point to fusion, but that's also currently getting over-hyped 15-20 years too early

governments are only investing the same way as into particle accelerators - in form of research grants

simulation of QC is both extremely trivial (in "exponentially-slower" way) and existentially impossible (the whole sector would not exist if it was actually possible to use good old normal CPUs fast enough). Bringing in "AI technologies" only shows you as a gullible idiot that still parrots ai bubble without understanding exact details

If there is a breakthrough - it is secret government information, and it would not be available to non-government companies, especially those you can invest into. The moment such breakthroughs reach the market, knowledge of the very existence spreads - and yet all current known progress is dull.

The only evidence worth anything out of what you brought up is the export controls - and those have been extremely pre-emptive in preparation for geopolitics and far future tech. Error-correction barely started to be useful at 100 cubits, so 34 makes no sense other than to minimize brain drain with base tech

Post reply on HN