DailyDirt: Quantum Computing Works Now (Sorta)

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

If you haven’t heard about quantum computing, it’s an alternative to “classical computing” that relies on some strange properties of quantum physics. Sure, the computer (or whatever device) you’re reading this on also relies on physics a bit, but it stores information digitally as ones and zeroes — and not some superposition of two states of matter in an array. A few organizations are working on quantum computers (e.g., Google, NASA, D-Wave, Cambridge Quantum Computing, Yale Quantum Institute, Microsoft, IBM, etc.), but the true potential is still just slightly out of reach (for now).

After you’ve finished checking out those links, take a look at our holiday gift ideas for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.

Filed Under: , , , , , , ,
Companies: cambridge quantum computing, d-wave, google, ibm, microsoft, nasa, yale quantum institute

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “DailyDirt: Quantum Computing Works Now (Sorta)”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Lawrence D’Oliveiro says:

I Think These Are Just Analog Computers

Up to around the middle part of the 20th century, when digital electronics were much slower, there were “analog” computers. These implemented electronic analogs of the physical models they were trying to solve. While being much faster than the digital computers of the time, they also gave much less accuracy (maybe 3-4 significant figures).

I have a feeling the D-Wave is the same sort of thing. It may be 100 million times than conventional digital electronics, but I don’t think it can match the accuracy of the latter.

Richard (profile) says:

Re: I Think These Are Just Analog Computers

YOu are right – although of course one has to be clear what analog actually means – it DOESN’T mean “continuous” it means “by analogy” as you sort of point out.

To talk about quantum computers “outperforming” classical computers is of course nonsense. Quantum computers are horrendously difficult to “program” effectively. The entire research community has managed to create a set of algorithms that you can count on the fingers of one hand in the last 20 years.

What they can do is provide effective simulation for quantum mechanical systems.

For some reliable – hype free – information look at Scott Aaronson’s blog – here:


Richard (profile) says:

Re: Travelling Salesman

Actually the idea that quantum computing can solve the travelling salesman or other similar problems is a myth mostly propagated by journalists and others with a poor understanding of the subject. Some QC researcher cynically avoid undermining this myth because the myth is good for their funding!

Famously QC CAN factor big numbers very fast – but that is only because factorisation is NOT one of the general set of problems to which the travelling salesman belongs. Factoring has more structure than NP complete problems and hence is “easier”. It is this structure that Shor’s algorithm exploits. So I’d say that the final link in the article is misleading rubbish.

Mason Wheeler (profile) says:

Re: Re: Travelling Salesman

Well, there are NP-complete problems and NP-hard problems. NP-complete means (simplified version) that it’s very difficult to compute, but easy to verify the right answer once you see it. Factorization belongs to this category: once you have the factors, it’s simple arithmetic to verify that they are indeed the factors of the number in question.

The Traveling Salesman problem, on the other hand, is not easy to verify. It asks which permutation of possible routes the salesman may take is the fastest, and this necessarily requires you to compute every possible permutation of routes (or at least a significant percentage of them, if you’re clever enough to find a way to prove some of them can be pruned early) and then see which of them is the shortest. A problem that’s very difficult to both compute and verify is called NP-hard, and they’re significantly worse than ordinary NP-complete problems.

Lawrence D’Oliveiro says:

Re: Re: Re: NP-complete means (simplified version)

“NP-complete” has to do with the “P = NP” conjecture. NP-complete problems are NP-hard; they just have the additional property that, if any of them can be proven to be of the easier class P (solvable in deterministic polynomial time) instead of NP (solvable in non-deterministic polynomial time), then there is no such thing as a separate class NP, all such problems actually being in class P.

Richard (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Travelling Salesman

NP-complete means (simplified version) that it’s very difficult to compute, but easy to verify the right answer once you see it. Factorization belongs to this category:

No it doesn’t! In this diagram – assuming as most do that the left side is correct:

then factoring is in NP but not in NP complete. You can’t use Shor’s algorithm to solve 3sat.

Coises (profile) says:

I have to wonder where this is going...

This could be just dystopian fantasy, but somehow I suspect that one of the kinds of problems quantum computing will be set to solve will be cracking encryption that is presently computationally unfeasible to break.

Possibly we’re seeing the first steps toward what will be the end of privacy and security based on mathematics.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: I have to wonder where this is going...

Anything that has enough power to decrypted keys can create keys as strong

I don’t think this is true. Post-quantum cryptography generally involves different algorithms, not just larger keys. Some of the algorithms do have huge keys/signatures, but you can’t just switch to a huge RSA key to get security (and I don’t know of any reason why a quantum computer would be better at modular exponentiation than a classical one).

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...