5 ms·

I'm not a quantum computing researcher but I have friends who work on it. The way they've described this to me (answering a question around "how does one know w

I'm not a quantum computing researcher but I have friends who work on it. The way they've described this to me (answering a question around "how does one know what quantum stuff is bs") was that it's largely a set of known "hard" questions where we've empirically found hard for classical computing but we maybe could solve with quantum. In a way it's been described as similar to crypto primitives or P?=NP problems where we don't know for certain why it's harder one way vs the other but it seems to be the case based on our current knowledge. It could possibly (but unlikely) be the case that we eventually find classical solutions that are just as fast. They don't seem worried about this though, since at least research-wise just working with quantum as a new tool to solve problems itself is intellectually interesting (and the "solves classically challenging problems" is a good way to frame the work's potential impact to general audiences). Also, there's other supposed uses of quantum beyond just computing, like for communication etc.

dataflow 3y ago
> where we've empirically found hard for classical computing but we maybe could solve with quantum Are we talking complexity classes here, or just "problems we've found hard in practice, but that which may in fact be in P even if P != NP"? Like I would've thought that solving BQP problems like integer factorization would be the criterion (since they're proven to be faster under QC assuming P != NP etc.). But that's evidently the researchers aren't holding themselves up to that standard, so what bar are they using exactly? Are they just going with some sort of "if it walks like a duck then it's a duck" criterion, or are they using problems that they can formally prove lack efficient classical solutions under a well-regarded hypothesis like P != NP?
- jabbany 3y ago
  Based on what I've heard, I don't think the bar is as high as "formally proven to lack a classical solution" for the whole field. Then again, the caveat is of the two people I know, one is doing cryptography/security in a quantum setting and the other is working on quantum related HW... so take this with as much salt as needed.
  - dataflow 3y ago
    I see, thanks!

dataflow 3y ago

> where we've empirically found hard for classical computing but we maybe could solve with quantum Are we talking complexity classes here, or just "problems we've found hard in practice, but that which may in fact be in P even if P != NP"? Like I would've thought that solving BQP problems like integer factorization would be the criterion (since they're proven to be faster under QC assuming P != NP etc.). But that's evidently the researchers aren't holding themselves up to that standard, so what bar are they using exactly? Are they just going with some sort of "if it walks like a duck then it's a duck" criterion, or are they using problems that they can formally prove lack efficient classical solutions under a well-regarded hypothesis like P != NP?

jabbany 3y ago
Based on what I've heard, I don't think the bar is as high as "formally proven to lack a classical solution" for the whole field. Then again, the caveat is of the two people I know, one is doing cryptography/security in a quantum setting and the other is working on quantum related HW... so take this with as much salt as needed.
- dataflow 3y ago
  I see, thanks!