3 ms·

> it would require 13 × 10^6 physical qubits It's 13 million qubits. It's weird they write it in scientific notation, it makes it look larger. If qubits got to

> it would require 13 × 10^6 physical qubits It's 13 million qubits. It's weird they write it in scientific notation, it makes it look larger. If qubits got to the moore-like-bandwagon, that is not many multiplications away from current amount.

dekhn 5y ago
scientific notation would look more like "1.3 x 10*5" (only one leading digit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_notation#Normalized_notation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_notation#Normalized...)
- VikingCoder 5y ago
  Don't you mean 1.3 x 10 ^ 7?
  - dekhn 5y ago
    Probably :)
- black6 5y ago
  Yes. It looks more like engineering notation (up to three digits to the left of the decimal and the power of 10 divisible by 3).
zinekeller 5y ago
Well, except that the approximate time for an additional "stable" qubit is currently plateauing, so outside a very lucky breakthrough, it's still unlikely. The official record for an actual running Shor's algorithm is 21 (not bits, just the number 21), which is still puny (there was an attempt to factor out 35 (again 35 as in 5×7), but it ended in failure due to quantum noise).
- mburee 5y ago
  But Shor's algorithm is for prime factorization, right? Are there equally faster algorithms available for elliptic curves?
  - zinekeller 5y ago
    I don't believe there's a publicly-available algorithm that's faster than Shor's for breaking EC, and to clarify any misconception you can also use Shor's for EC (EC is actually easier to break with Shor's than RSA, but EC has the advantage of shorter keys for longer brute-forcing using known classical methods).
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - tromp 5y ago
    Shor's algorithm generalizes to any hidden subgroup problem for finite Abelian groups [1], which includes integer factoring and elliptic curve discrete log. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_subgroup_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_subgroup_problem

dekhn 5y ago

scientific notation would look more like "1.3 x 10*5" (only one leading digit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_notation#Normalized_notation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_notation#Normalized...)

VikingCoder 5y ago
Don't you mean 1.3 x 10 ^ 7?
- dekhn 5y ago
  Probably :)
black6 5y ago
Yes. It looks more like engineering notation (up to three digits to the left of the decimal and the power of 10 divisible by 3).

zinekeller 5y ago

Well, except that the approximate time for an additional "stable" qubit is currently plateauing, so outside a very lucky breakthrough, it's still unlikely. The official record for an actual running Shor's algorithm is 21 (not bits, just the number 21), which is still puny (there was an attempt to factor out 35 (again 35 as in 5×7), but it ended in failure due to quantum noise).

mburee 5y ago
But Shor's algorithm is for prime factorization, right? Are there equally faster algorithms available for elliptic curves?
- zinekeller 5y ago
  I don't believe there's a publicly-available algorithm that's faster than Shor's for breaking EC, and to clarify any misconception you can also use Shor's for EC (EC is actually easier to break with Shor's than RSA, but EC has the advantage of shorter keys for longer brute-forcing using known classical methods).
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- tromp 5y ago
  Shor's algorithm generalizes to any hidden subgroup problem for finite Abelian groups [1], which includes integer factoring and elliptic curve discrete log. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_subgroup_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_subgroup_problem