←back to thread

128 points sebgan | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.205s | source
Show context
wasabi991011 ◴[] No.44539574[source]
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).
replies(1): >>44541356 #
thrance ◴[] No.44541356[source]
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 dollars industry though?

replies(3): >>44541671 #>>44542131 #>>44542282 #
upofadown ◴[] No.44542282[source]
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.
replies(2): >>44542328 #>>44543378 #
1. pclmulqdq ◴[] No.44543378[source]
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.