←back to thread

Why haven't quantum computers factored 21 yet?

(algassert.com)
335 points ingve | 1 comments | 31 Aug 25 12:14 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
alchemist1e9 ◴[31 Aug 25 13:33 UTC] No.45083047[source]▶
And these are the same quantum computers that will eventually break ecliptic curve cryptography? Now I’m very confused.
replies(7): >>45083084 #>>45083090 #>>45083099 #>>45083208 #>>45083232 #>>45083263 #>>45083447 #
bArray ◴[31 Aug 25 13:41 UTC] No.45083090[source]▶
I think the idea is that it doesn’t matter if it takes billions of gates to achieve, the point is that it can do it very fast. If we thought a table sized FPGA could do it, a state actor would most definitely build one.
replies(1): >>45083217 #
lazide ◴[31 Aug 25 14:03 UTC] No.45083217[source]▶
theoretically

The practical problem is that ‘noise’ between gates seems to increase exponentially, so practically it may actually be impossible to construct anything with more than a handful of gates for the foreseeable (possibly indefinite?) future.

It’s essentially the crypto version of Fusion.

replies(1): >>45083249 #
EthanHeilman ◴[31 Aug 25 14:08 UTC] No.45083249[source]▶
Quantum error correction addresses this problem and we now have tech demos showing that we can build scalable QCs with surface codes [0].

[0] https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=8525

replies(2): >>45083346 #>>45084819 #
Der_Einzige ◴[31 Aug 25 17:05 UTC] No.45084819{3}[source]▶
This, like all other purported advancements in quantum error correction, is a meme with zero practical impact.
replies(1): >>45088655 #
1. EthanHeilman ◴[01 Sep 25 01:38 UTC] No.45088655{4}[source]▶
any sources? I'd be interested to read a critique of quantum error correction