3 ms·
Agree. Scott is exactly correct when he just straight calls it crap. It's inaccurate to say it wins on small numbers because on small numbers you would use cla
by Strilanc 7mo ago
Agree. Scott is exactly correct when he just straight calls it crap.
It's inaccurate to say it wins on small numbers because on small numbers you would use classical computers. By the time you get to numbers that take more than a minute to factor classically, and start dreaming of quantum computers, you're well beyond the size where you could tractably do the proposed state preparation.
- amelius 7mo agoWell, the reviewers missed it too.
- bawolff 7mo agoHonestly i think he was remarkably polite given the sort of crap we are talking about.
- pseudohadamard 7mo agoI believe the appropriate technical term is "bollocks" rather than "crap", see https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/bollocks.pdf https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/bollocks.pdf.
- Strilanc 7mo agoThat slide deck is complaining that correct work on quantum attacks should be seen as negligible priority or as distractions. TFA is complaining that JVG isn't even correct. They are pretty different concerns. To be clear, I think that slide deck will be looked back upon as naive. In particular, it makes the classic mistake of assuming the size of number factored should be growing smoothly. That's naive because 15 is such a huge cost outlier and because quantum error correction has frontloaded costs. See [1] and [2] for details. [1]: https://algassert.com/post/2500 https://algassert.com/post/2500 [2]: https://algassert.com/post/2503 https://algassert.com/post/2503