3 ms·
The qbit count jumping from 15 to 21 is instructive, it's said to be a non linear jump. And remember rsa2048 is now routine. But your points are well made. I t
by ggm 1y ago
The qbit count jumping from 15 to 21 is instructive, it's said to be a non linear jump. And remember rsa2048 is now routine.
But your points are well made. I threw "useful" into the mix but he's saying any functionality, would be a significant milestone.
Perhaps I misunderstood but I find cohorts of 3 nines reliability not very reassuring. Either you need significantly more "gates" or you need repeated calculation and as gate count rises with factoring complexity I believe the same holds for digits of reliability.
I'm not in QC or cryptography btw. Amongst cryptographers that I know, I get mixed responses. Most dislike aspects of hybrid, but most also see the deep seated paranoia of future technology capabilities applying to masses of data collected and held now. Storage is cheap. Few say they think anything like as soon as "a few years" applies to even state actors backed QC attacks on real world RSA.
- qnleigh 1y agoOf course 3 nines of reliability in directly processing information is not very useful; after ~1000 operations you would be very likely to have an error. But quantum computers do not process information that is stored in single qubits. They use quantum error correction to turn many mediocre qubits (i.e. 3 nines) into a smaller number of very good (like 18 nines) error-corrected logical qubits. These error correcting codes work fine with 3 or 4 nines. In fact I'm not aware of any platform that plans to scale by reaching 5 nines. Everyone is aiming for the 3-4 nines regime. Incidentally, quantum error correction is the reason why you need 1 million qubits to factor as RSA number. Shor's algorithm only needs Few thousand, but error correction adds lot of overhead.