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.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Lawrence D’Oliveiro, 10 Dec 2015 @ 6:44pm

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Richard (profile), 11 Dec 2015 @ 2:39am

      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:

      http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2555

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Glenn, 10 Dec 2015 @ 7:27pm

    Only one of the "traveling salesmen" is real; any others are imaginary (more like fantasy than virtual). Quantum computing, per se, may turn out to be just as imaginary... but that's science for ya.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Richard (profile), 11 Dec 2015 @ 2:45am

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Mason Wheeler (profile), 11 Dec 2015 @ 7:07am

        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.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Lawrence D’Oliveiro, 11 Dec 2015 @ 1:14pm

          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.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Mason Wheeler (profile), 14 Dec 2015 @ 6:58am

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

            Yes, I know, but that was a deliberately simplified post for the benefit of people without a background in computer science and complexity theory. :P

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Richard (profile), 17 Dec 2015 @ 7:56am

          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:
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NP-hardness#/media/File:P_np_np-complete_np-hard.svg

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

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2015 @ 7:57pm

    We know you typed the word "yes" in Word. And we're telling you, there's a 50% chance it will come out "no". That's just Microsoft Windows works at the quantum level. Yes, the upgrade is mandatory. (Or maybe no?)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Coises (profile), 10 Dec 2015 @ 11:21pm

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Fin, 11 Dec 2015 @ 12:23am

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

      Anything that has enough power to decrypted keys can create keys as strong, and thanks to data speeds a bigger key aint too much of an issue :)

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Richard (profile), 11 Dec 2015 @ 2:46am

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

        Actually not true - but quantum encryption - which is closer to feasible than quantum factoring - also fixes the problem.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Dec 2015 @ 10:00am

        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).

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Dec 2015 @ 1:24am

    Looking forward to the quantum cat vids - i can haz existenz?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Rekrul, 11 Dec 2015 @ 10:30am

    Fully working quantum computers already exist. I saw one on the show Scorpion. It's based on a real person's life, they wouldn't just make something like that up...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Dec 2015 @ 11:56am

    Like I'm a billionaire...

    sorta.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.