Quantum Computers?
-
How many times faster do you think Quantum Computers will be? Do you think it will be able to crack a 256-bit key in a matter of seconds? :laugh:
It is said that the most complex structures built by mankind are software systems. This is not generally appreciated because most people cannot see them. Maybe that's a good thing because if we saw them as buildings, we'd deem many of them unsafe.
-
How many times faster do you think Quantum Computers will be? Do you think it will be able to crack a 256-bit key in a matter of seconds? :laugh:
It is said that the most complex structures built by mankind are software systems. This is not generally appreciated because most people cannot see them. Maybe that's a good thing because if we saw them as buildings, we'd deem many of them unsafe.
Ian Uy wrote:
How many times faster do you think Quantum Computers will be? Do you think it will be able to crack a 256-bit key in a matter of seconds?
-
Ian Uy wrote:
How many times faster do you think Quantum Computers will be? Do you think it will be able to crack a 256-bit key in a matter of seconds?
Bizarre!
Kevin
-
How many times faster do you think Quantum Computers will be? Do you think it will be able to crack a 256-bit key in a matter of seconds? :laugh:
It is said that the most complex structures built by mankind are software systems. This is not generally appreciated because most people cannot see them. Maybe that's a good thing because if we saw them as buildings, we'd deem many of them unsafe.
Quantum computers aren't "many times" faster. For a few problems, they are faster because the quantum algorithm of the problem is faster. E.g. breaking RSA (=prime factorization): while not NP-complete, there's no known classic algorithm that does it in polynomial time. On a quantum computer, breaking RSA with Shor's algorithms is O(n^3). (n=number of digits) Quantum Computers break RSA, but there are alternative public key algorithms that don't have this weakness. Even for brute-force problems, quantum algorithms can sometimes do better: breaking a symmetric cipher like AES 256-bit requires 2^256 tries to brute-force on a classical computer, but only 2^128 tries on a quantum computer. Quantum computers don't break AES; even if they get extremely fast, a simple increase in key size is sufficient.
-
Ian Uy wrote:
How many times faster do you think Quantum Computers will be? Do you think it will be able to crack a 256-bit key in a matter of seconds?
So when can we expect these quantum computers to become usable by mere humans behind a desk? I keep reading these articles and keep wondering when they actually come up with a model that works for normal people with for example a linux or unix variant installed on it.
WM. What about weapons of mass-construction? "What? Its an Apple MacBook Pro. They are sexy!" - Paul Watson My blog
-
How many times faster do you think Quantum Computers will be? Do you think it will be able to crack a 256-bit key in a matter of seconds? :laugh:
It is said that the most complex structures built by mankind are software systems. This is not generally appreciated because most people cannot see them. Maybe that's a good thing because if we saw them as buildings, we'd deem many of them unsafe.
"Quantum" is an American Indian term meaning "many fires burning on prairie". Before the advent of computers, experts universally theorized and agreed that it referred to the many thousands of steaming buffalo pies that virtually blinded anyone wearing night vision goggles (though nobody has explained where early American Indians may have obtained the goggles).
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
How many times faster do you think Quantum Computers will be? Do you think it will be able to crack a 256-bit key in a matter of seconds? :laugh:
It is said that the most complex structures built by mankind are software systems. This is not generally appreciated because most people cannot see them. Maybe that's a good thing because if we saw them as buildings, we'd deem many of them unsafe.
Ian Uy wrote:
How many times faster do you think Quantum Computers will be? Do you think it will be able to crack a 256-bit key in a matter of seconds?
I bet that in less than in 50 years, graphics technology based on quantum computing will so advanced that my grandchildren will be playing inside real life holodecks. (That assumes, of course, that quantum mechanics isn't already a sign that we're actually living inside of our own.) --- Oh, and on an unrelated side note, it's nice to see another Pinoy on the site. :) Medyo konte lang tayo dito, pare. :P
Do you know...LinFu?
-
Ian Uy wrote:
How many times faster do you think Quantum Computers will be? Do you think it will be able to crack a 256-bit key in a matter of seconds?
Excellent. I've always been fascinated with Quantum physics. It's what you don't see that makes it work.
Member number three million seven hundred seventy two thousand nine hundred sixty three
-
"Quantum" is an American Indian term meaning "many fires burning on prairie". Before the advent of computers, experts universally theorized and agreed that it referred to the many thousands of steaming buffalo pies that virtually blinded anyone wearing night vision goggles (though nobody has explained where early American Indians may have obtained the goggles).
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001Interesting point. Not sure about the steaming pies, though.
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon "Not only do you continue to babble nonsense, you can't even correctly remember the nonsense you babbled just minutes ago." - Rob Graham
-
So when can we expect these quantum computers to become usable by mere humans behind a desk? I keep reading these articles and keep wondering when they actually come up with a model that works for normal people with for example a linux or unix variant installed on it.
WM. What about weapons of mass-construction? "What? Its an Apple MacBook Pro. They are sexy!" - Paul Watson My blog
WillemM wrote:
keep reading these articles and keep wondering when they actually come up with a model that works for normal people.
Eniac: 1946 Altair: 1974
WillemM wrote:
for example a linux or unix variant installed on it.
I wouldn't hold my breath
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
WillemM wrote:
keep reading these articles and keep wondering when they actually come up with a model that works for normal people.
Eniac: 1946 Altair: 1974
WillemM wrote:
for example a linux or unix variant installed on it.
I wouldn't hold my breath
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Doesn't look much like quantum computing, more like a quantum leap into history ;P But fun nonetheless.
Oakman wrote:
I wouldn't hold my breath
I'm not going to do that, you only got 3 minutes with that action and I'm pretty sure they can't build one of them machines in that time.
WM. What about weapons of mass-construction? "What? Its an Apple MacBook Pro. They are sexy!" - Paul Watson My blog
-
Quantum computers aren't "many times" faster. For a few problems, they are faster because the quantum algorithm of the problem is faster. E.g. breaking RSA (=prime factorization): while not NP-complete, there's no known classic algorithm that does it in polynomial time. On a quantum computer, breaking RSA with Shor's algorithms is O(n^3). (n=number of digits) Quantum Computers break RSA, but there are alternative public key algorithms that don't have this weakness. Even for brute-force problems, quantum algorithms can sometimes do better: breaking a symmetric cipher like AES 256-bit requires 2^256 tries to brute-force on a classical computer, but only 2^128 tries on a quantum computer. Quantum computers don't break AES; even if they get extremely fast, a simple increase in key size is sufficient.
Could you give some citations on this? My understanding was that an N qbit QC could crack any Nbit cipher by trying to decrypt with all 2^N possible keys simultaneously.
Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots. -- Robert Royall