3 ms·
Why would they need to have done so? The blog post argues there's no evidence this is any faster than classical Schnorr's algorithm, and classical Schnorr's alg
by chowells 4y ago
Why would they need to have done so? The blog post argues there's no evidence this is any faster than classical Schnorr's algorithm, and classical Schnorr's algorithm can easily factor a 48-bit number.
And as the post also makes very sure to point out, Schnorr != Shor.
- Bootvis 4y agoShnorr != Schnorr