http://emergentchaos.com/archives/2008/03/quantum-progress.html The Emergent Chaos Jazz Combo Mon, 15 Mar 2010 15:02:09 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 http://emergentchaos.com/archives/2008/03/quantum-progress.html/comment-page-1#comment-4458 sup Thu, 27 Mar 2008 07:12:39 +0000 http://emergentchaos.com/?p=2682#comment-4458 "Interestingly, Aaronson says that adiabatic quantum computers like D-Wave need k11 gates rather than k3 gates, which pretty much knocks them out of viability at all, if that's so." Where scott aareonson say this? "The factoring that has been done on today's quantum computers is of a four-bit number, 15. If you pay attention to quantum computing articles, you'll note they always factor 15. There's a reason for this. It's of the form (2n-1) * ( 2n+1). In binary, 2n-1 is a string of all 1 bits. A number that is 2n+1 is a 1 bit followed by a string of 0s, and then a 1 again. These numbers are a special form that is easy to factor, and in the real world not going to occur in a public key." Factoring 15 take 4^n time, on NMR "quantum computer", becouse (current) NMR QC isn't quantum computer at all and working with exponentional speedup, but playning kind of quantum game: "how will be if I put shit onto qunatum world"... Quantum computer is analog computer with at most precision 0.99999, which is limitation for any analog computer. And so quantum computer ever break after 100000 qubits or steps or need error correction, which somehow deal with this number (one error per 100 thousunds per qubit). I can't imagine how is possible to correct analog errors, but maybe I somthing don't understand yet. So according to my analog understanding of quantum computer it can't factor even 100 bits number, don't mutter how much qubits it will have, even if it will work like probabilitic computer like current NMR QC's. It will take universe age time... “Interestingly, Aaronson says that adiabatic quantum computers like D-Wave need k11 gates rather than k3 gates, which pretty much knocks them out of viability at all, if that’s so.”
Where scott aareonson say this?
“The factoring that has been done on today’s quantum computers is of a four-bit number, 15. If you pay attention to quantum computing articles, you’ll note they always factor 15. There’s a reason for this. It’s of the form (2n-1) * ( 2n+1). In binary, 2n-1 is a string of all 1 bits. A number that is 2n+1 is a 1 bit followed by a string of 0s, and then a 1 again. These numbers are a special form that is easy to factor, and in the real world not going to occur in a public key.”
Factoring 15 take 4^n time, on NMR “quantum computer”, becouse (current) NMR QC isn’t quantum computer at all and working with exponentional speedup, but playning kind of quantum game: “how will be if I put shit onto qunatum world”…
Quantum computer is analog computer with at most precision 0.99999, which is limitation for any analog computer. And so quantum computer ever break after 100000 qubits or steps or need error correction, which somehow deal with this number (one error per 100 thousunds per qubit). I can’t imagine how is possible to correct analog errors, but maybe I somthing don’t understand yet. So according to my analog understanding of quantum computer it can’t factor even 100 bits number, don’t mutter how much qubits it will have, even if it will work like probabilitic computer like current NMR QC’s. It will take universe age time…

]]> http://emergentchaos.com/archives/2008/03/quantum-progress.html/comment-page-1#comment-4457 Richard Cant Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:33:22 +0000 http://emergentchaos.com/?p=2682#comment-4457 First an observation about Moore's law. Moore's Law is a law of economics. It determines the way in which a technology will progress given that there are no insuperable technical factors to halt progress and there is an unlimited market for the products. In that case what Moore's law models is essentially the investment cycle. For semiconductors the investment cycle for a plant is roughly 3 years and the desirable progress for a new plant is a factor 2 linear scaling (4x area). Given the unlimited potential market for the product each generation easily funds the next and so the investment cycle governs everything. Without funding progress stops dead. Hit a technical barrier and the same happens. A similar law operated in the aircraft industry - for ~ 50 years aircraft speed doubled about every 10 years. If you read books written in the late 50's you will find that eeryone was totally convinced that this would continue for ever! Then they hit the heat barrier and it all stopped There are good reasons to believe that conventional computing will also hit a heat barrier within the next 10 years. (Have you put your laptop on your lap recently?) There are also good reason to suppose that Quantum computing will never have the unlimited market of conventional computing - and hence the funding will never be there to make it obey Moore's law First an observation about Moore’s law.
Moore’s Law is a law of economics. It determines the way in which a technology will progress given that there are no insuperable technical factors to halt progress and there is an unlimited market for the products. In that case what Moore’s law models is essentially the investment cycle. For semiconductors the investment cycle for a plant is roughly 3 years and the desirable progress for a new plant is a factor 2 linear scaling (4x area).
Given the unlimited potential market for the product each generation easily funds the next and so the investment cycle governs everything. Without funding progress stops dead. Hit a technical barrier and the same happens.
A similar law operated in the aircraft industry – for ~ 50 years aircraft speed doubled about every 10 years. If you read books written in the late 50’s you will find that eeryone was totally convinced that this would continue for ever!
Then they hit the heat barrier and it all stopped
There are good reasons to believe that conventional computing will also hit a heat barrier within the next 10 years. (Have you put your laptop on your lap recently?)
There are also good reason to suppose that Quantum computing will never have the unlimited market of conventional computing – and hence the funding will never be there to make it obey Moore’s law

]]> http://emergentchaos.com/archives/2008/03/quantum-progress.html/comment-page-1#comment-4456 Michael Bacon Tue, 25 Mar 2008 15:46:57 +0000 http://emergentchaos.com/?p=2682#comment-4456 Sorry about the multiple postings -- it didn't seem like it was posting so I pushed it a few times -- once again, very sorry about that :( Sorry about the multiple postings — it didn’t seem like it was posting so I pushed it a few times — once again, very sorry about that :(

]]> http://emergentchaos.com/archives/2008/03/quantum-progress.html/comment-page-1#comment-4455 Mark Aldington Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:22:41 +0000 http://emergentchaos.com/?p=2682#comment-4455 I'm not a mathematician nor a physicist, nor a proponent of the "usual Oooooo Scary Quantum Computers Are Going to Factor Numbers Which Will Cause The Collapse of All Financial Markets And Then We Will All DIEEEEE" brigade either, though I concede as a consultant I will be assumed to be nearer the latter than the former. Just a couple of points: 1. It may be a bit imprudent to assume that Moore's Law will have any relevance to the development of Q computing and arguably, IF, (and it is a very big IF)the very real problems get overcome and scaling is resolved, then it might not take many generations at all to get to 72k cubed. 2. As we have all recently noticed the banking system is totally reliant on confidence in the banking system. The merest sniff of quantum computers getting into the hands of the usual suspects and the media jumping on the story of the end of secure e-commerce as we know it, could make today's market woes seem like a picnic. So while your skeptism is reasonable, the cost of your being right through continued research and conferences to prove the unviability of quantum computing is somewhat overshadowed if your assumptions turn out to be wrong. I’m not a mathematician nor a physicist, nor a proponent of the “usual Oooooo Scary Quantum Computers Are Going to Factor Numbers Which Will Cause The Collapse of All Financial Markets And Then We Will All DIEEEEE” brigade either, though I concede as a consultant I will be assumed to be nearer the latter than the former. Just a couple of points:
1. It may be a bit imprudent to assume that Moore’s Law will have any relevance to the development of Q computing and arguably, IF, (and it is a very big IF)the very real problems get overcome and scaling is resolved, then it might not take many generations at all to get to 72k cubed.
2. As we have all recently noticed the banking system is totally reliant on confidence in the banking system. The merest sniff of quantum computers getting into the hands of the usual suspects and the media jumping on the story of the end of secure e-commerce as we know it, could make today’s market woes seem like a picnic.
So while your skeptism is reasonable, the cost of your being right through continued research and conferences to prove the unviability of quantum computing is somewhat overshadowed if your assumptions turn out to be wrong.

]]> http://emergentchaos.com/archives/2008/03/quantum-progress.html/comment-page-1#comment-4454 Michael Bacon Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:18:56 +0000 http://emergentchaos.com/?p=2682#comment-4454 Mordaxus, It's always good to be skeptical, so that much about your post is appreciated. However, your response was inadequate to Dave Bacon's (no relation) post that went through a number of the facts and some of the reasoning upon which you base your conclusions. I think if you're post is to be taken seriously as more than mere skepticism or even as justified criticism of press hype -- that is, as a meaningful critique of quantum computing and the research surrounding it, then you need to do a better job at responding in a clear and reasoned way to the what seemed like pretty clear points raised by Dave. If the facts and reasoning upon which you base you conclusions are really off-the-mark, perhaps the conclusions themselves deserve to be questioned. Mordaxus,
It’s always good to be skeptical, so that much about your post is appreciated. However, your response was inadequate to Dave Bacon’s (no relation) post that went through a number of the facts and some of the reasoning upon which you base your conclusions.
I think if you’re post is to be taken seriously as more than mere skepticism or even as justified criticism of press hype — that is, as a meaningful critique of quantum computing and the research surrounding it, then you need to do a better job at responding in a clear and reasoned way to the what seemed like pretty clear points raised by Dave.
If the facts and reasoning upon which you base you conclusions are really off-the-mark, perhaps the conclusions themselves deserve to be questioned.

]]> http://emergentchaos.com/archives/2008/03/quantum-progress.html/comment-page-1#comment-4453 Michael Bacon Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:18:55 +0000 http://emergentchaos.com/?p=2682#comment-4453 Mordaxus, It's always good to be skeptical, so that much about your post is appreciated. However, your response was inadequate to Dave Bacon's (no relation) post that went through a number of the facts and some of the reasoning upon which you base your conclusions. I think if you're post is to be taken seriously as more than mere skepticism or even as justified criticism of press hype -- that is, as a meaningful critique of quantum computing and the research surrounding it, then you need to do a better job at responding in a clear and reasoned way to the what seemed like pretty clear points raised by Dave. If the facts and reasoning upon which you base you conclusions are really off-the-mark, perhaps the conclusions themselves deserve to be questioned. Mordaxus,
It’s always good to be skeptical, so that much about your post is appreciated. However, your response was inadequate to Dave Bacon’s (no relation) post that went through a number of the facts and some of the reasoning upon which you base your conclusions.
I think if you’re post is to be taken seriously as more than mere skepticism or even as justified criticism of press hype — that is, as a meaningful critique of quantum computing and the research surrounding it, then you need to do a better job at responding in a clear and reasoned way to the what seemed like pretty clear points raised by Dave.
If the facts and reasoning upon which you base you conclusions are really off-the-mark, perhaps the conclusions themselves deserve to be questioned.

]]> http://emergentchaos.com/archives/2008/03/quantum-progress.html/comment-page-1#comment-4452 Michael Bacon Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:18:27 +0000 http://emergentchaos.com/?p=2682#comment-4452 Mordaxus, It's always good to be skeptical, so that much about your post is appreciated. However, your response was inadequate to Dave Bacon's (no relation) post that went through a number of the facts and some of the reasoning upon which you base your conclusions. I think if you're post is to be taken seriously as more than mere skepticism or even as justified criticism of press hype -- that is, as a meaningful critique of quantum computing and the research surrounding it, then you need to do a better job at responding in a clear and reasoned way to the what seemed like pretty clear points raised by Dave. If the facts and reasoning upon which you base you conclusions are really off-the-mark, perhaps the conclusions themselves deserve to be questioned. Mordaxus,
It’s always good to be skeptical, so that much about your post is appreciated. However, your response was inadequate to Dave Bacon’s (no relation) post that went through a number of the facts and some of the reasoning upon which you base your conclusions.
I think if you’re post is to be taken seriously as more than mere skepticism or even as justified criticism of press hype — that is, as a meaningful critique of quantum computing and the research surrounding it, then you need to do a better job at responding in a clear and reasoned way to the what seemed like pretty clear points raised by Dave.
If the facts and reasoning upon which you base you conclusions are really off-the-mark, perhaps the conclusions themselves deserve to be questioned.

]]> http://emergentchaos.com/archives/2008/03/quantum-progress.html/comment-page-1#comment-4451 Michael Bacon Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:18:20 +0000 http://emergentchaos.com/?p=2682#comment-4451 Mordaxus, It's always good to be skeptical, so that much about your post is appreciated. However, your response was inadequate to Dave Bacon's (no relation) post that went through a number of the facts and some of the reasoning upon which you base your conclusions. I think if you're post is to be taken seriously as more than mere skepticism or even as justified criticism of press hype -- that is, as a meaningful critique of quantum computing and the research surrounding it, then you need to do a better job at responding in a clear and reasoned way to the what seemed like pretty clear points raised by Dave. If the facts and reasoning upon which you base you conclusions are really off-the-mark, perhaps the conclusions themselves deserve to be questioned. Mordaxus,
It’s always good to be skeptical, so that much about your post is appreciated. However, your response was inadequate to Dave Bacon’s (no relation) post that went through a number of the facts and some of the reasoning upon which you base your conclusions.
I think if you’re post is to be taken seriously as more than mere skepticism or even as justified criticism of press hype — that is, as a meaningful critique of quantum computing and the research surrounding it, then you need to do a better job at responding in a clear and reasoned way to the what seemed like pretty clear points raised by Dave.
If the facts and reasoning upon which you base you conclusions are really off-the-mark, perhaps the conclusions themselves deserve to be questioned.

]]> http://emergentchaos.com/archives/2008/03/quantum-progress.html/comment-page-1#comment-4450 Mordaxus Tue, 25 Mar 2008 02:33:59 +0000 http://emergentchaos.com/?p=2682#comment-4450 (Echoed from Dave Bacon's link.) I freely admit that I'm a mathematician, not a physicist, and that there is much about quantum computation that I do not understand. Nonetheless, here's the gauntlet: when do <b>you</b> think it is reasonable that there will be a quantum computer that can factor a 4096-bit key in quasi-reasonable time? (Oh, let's say a year of running time.) Under the assumptions that Moore's law continues with semiconductors indefinitely, 2060 is a good guess. Under my lick-my-finger-and-stick-it-in-the-wind calculations for quantum computers, assuming similar ramps and dead reckoning, it's 2053. I further observe that those two guesses are interestingly close. What's your guess? What's your reasoning? if it makes you feel any better, I predict we get a usable quantum computer before we get a HAL-9000-level AI, or flying cars, or jet packs, or moon bases. M (Echoed from Dave Bacon’s link.)
I freely admit that I’m a mathematician, not a physicist, and that there is much about quantum computation that I do not understand.
Nonetheless, here’s the gauntlet: when do you think it is reasonable that there will be a quantum computer that can factor a 4096-bit key in quasi-reasonable time? (Oh, let’s say a year of running time.)
Under the assumptions that Moore’s law continues with semiconductors indefinitely, 2060 is a good guess.
Under my lick-my-finger-and-stick-it-in-the-wind calculations for quantum computers, assuming similar ramps and dead reckoning, it’s 2053.
I further observe that those two guesses are interestingly close.
What’s your guess? What’s your reasoning?
if it makes you feel any better, I predict we get a usable quantum computer before we get a HAL-9000-level AI, or flying cars, or jet packs, or moon bases.
M

]]> http://emergentchaos.com/archives/2008/03/quantum-progress.html/comment-page-1#comment-4449 Dave Bacon Mon, 24 Mar 2008 23:27:39 +0000 http://emergentchaos.com/?p=2682#comment-4449 <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/pontiff/2008/03/shor_calculations.php" rel="nofollow">Gauntlet</a> picked up and returned :) Gauntlet picked up and returned :)

]]>