4 ms·

ooookay a more recent demonstration: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1804.03719.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1804.03719.pdf you said the number 15 was never factored on a q

ooookay a more recent demonstration: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1804.03719.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1804.03719.pdf you said the number 15 was never factored on a quantum computer - this is false. You can run as many gates as you want - go ahead and run 4608 gates in qiskit right now - the measurements will be random but you can do it. IDK where you got that equation for the number of gates but it's probably for the general case - doesn't take into account the fact that different gate sets can be used to reduce the total. Also confused on the error correction part - the whole point of error correction is to make the coherence time independent of the number of 'gates' in your circuit - so yeah with error correction you get more gates but you also get an effectively infinite coherence time...

scottlocklin 7y ago
>you said the number 15 was never factored on a quantum computer - this is false. I guess it depends what you mean by "factored" and "quantum computer" -using the generally accepted definitions, the number 15 has never been factored on a quantum computer using the Shor algorithm. Yes, I am talking about the general case where you don't leave out the gates for 2 and 7 being factors of 15. That's what most people mean by factoring. Stating the answer because you know it already isn't useful. LARPing by running the algo through the "right" gates also isn't useful.
- codesushi42 7y ago
  You are just plain wrong. And you failed to consider quantum annealing as an alternative to Shor.
  - scottlocklin 7y ago
    You're right I do fail to consider this, as it's not really an alternative to Shor, because annealing is horse shit that nobody can decide the computational complexity of. Not even D-wave thinks it might be. [1] [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-36058-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-36058-z
    - codesushi42 7y ago
      Complexity in what terms? For a classical computer? Besides, the empirical data shows otherwise. It takes 12 qubits to factor 15. We're up to 53 now. With quantum annealing, a 20 bit number has been factored with 97 qubits. Not on a real quantum computer yet, of course. So I have no idea what you are talking about.
      - scottlocklin 7y ago
        > Not on a real quantum computer yet, of course... Erm, OK. I guess we agree that nobody has factored the number 15 on a quantum computer yet. Maybe you should read the paper I helpfully linked you above.
        codesushi42 7y ago
        Yes they have. You are spreading lies and FUD: https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2016-03-quantum-factors-scaled.amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2016-03-quantum-f... I was referring to the quantum annealing example, because no 97 qubit quantum computer exists yet.
        scottlocklin 7y ago
        I'm not spreading FUD; I am correcting misinformation from muppets whose understanding doesn't go beyond press releases. Nobody has yet done a Shor factorization of the number 15; the end, and even if someone's press release says so there is no scalable way of factoring large integers.
        codesushi42 7y ago
        There is. Quantum annealing. I think you're just trolling at this point. Or do you not care for much reading?
        scottlocklin 7y ago

scottlocklin 7y ago

>you said the number 15 was never factored on a quantum computer - this is false. I guess it depends what you mean by "factored" and "quantum computer" -using the generally accepted definitions, the number 15 has never been factored on a quantum computer using the Shor algorithm. Yes, I am talking about the general case where you don't leave out the gates for 2 and 7 being factors of 15. That's what most people mean by factoring. Stating the answer because you know it already isn't useful. LARPing by running the algo through the "right" gates also isn't useful.

codesushi42 7y ago
You are just plain wrong. And you failed to consider quantum annealing as an alternative to Shor.
- scottlocklin 7y ago
  You're right I do fail to consider this, as it's not really an alternative to Shor, because annealing is horse shit that nobody can decide the computational complexity of. Not even D-wave thinks it might be. [1] [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-36058-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-36058-z
  - codesushi42 7y ago
    Complexity in what terms? For a classical computer? Besides, the empirical data shows otherwise. It takes 12 qubits to factor 15. We're up to 53 now. With quantum annealing, a 20 bit number has been factored with 97 qubits. Not on a real quantum computer yet, of course. So I have no idea what you are talking about.
    - scottlocklin 7y ago
      > Not on a real quantum computer yet, of course... Erm, OK. I guess we agree that nobody has factored the number 15 on a quantum computer yet. Maybe you should read the paper I helpfully linked you above.
      - codesushi42 7y ago
        Yes they have. You are spreading lies and FUD: https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2016-03-quantum-factors-scaled.amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2016-03-quantum-f... I was referring to the quantum annealing example, because no 97 qubit quantum computer exists yet.
        scottlocklin 7y ago
        I'm not spreading FUD; I am correcting misinformation from muppets whose understanding doesn't go beyond press releases. Nobody has yet done a Shor factorization of the number 15; the end, and even if someone's press release says so there is no scalable way of factoring large integers.
        codesushi42 7y ago
        There is. Quantum annealing. I think you're just trolling at this point. Or do you not care for much reading?
        scottlocklin 7y ago