> We verified this by taking a recently-calibrated reference dog, Scribble, depicted in Figure 6, and having him bark three times, thus simultaneously factorising both 15 and 21. This process wasn’t as simple as it first appeared because Scribble is very well behaved and almost never barks.
A relevant quote: "this is your daily reminder that "How large is the biggest number it can factorize" is NOT a good measure of progress in quantum computing. If you're still stuck in this mindset, you'll be up for a rude awakening."
A relevant quote: "Humans faced with disaster tend to optimistically imagine ways that the disaster will be avoided. Given the reality of more and more user data being encrypted with RSA and ECC, the world will be a better place if every effort to build a quantum computer runs into some insurmountable physical obstacle"
I agree with what you're saying, but what you're also essentially saying is that QCs are so useless at the moment that the granularity of integers is not enough to measure progress on the hardware.
Shor's algorithm still requires O(log(N)³) qubits and O(log(N)²log(log(N))log(log(log(N)))) operations to factor N, which is why these satirical "records" highlight the absurdity of focusing solely on factorization milestones rather than addressing the exponential scaling challenges.
The thing that still feels off to me is that you should be able to run 8 bit Shors algorithm without error correction, right? Sure we don't have reliable error corrected q-bits, but being able to factor a number that small should be possible (even if it had a fairly high error rate) with current computers. Sure it won't be 100% reliable, but if we had published results that in 2010 it got the right answer 10% of the time, and in 2025 it gets the answer write 25% of the time, that would at least be a measure of progress.
After having read this paper I'm busy working on the replication of String Theory with a plate of Spaghetti, a packet of instant Ramen noodles and a pair of Octopuses. I would have used a single octopus but those 8 arms don't cover the 12 dimensions in String Theory. Technically a single squid might suffice - it has 8 arms, 2 tentacles and 2 fins which makes 12 - but that wouldn't be fair to the dimensions which get stuck with the fins while others get to walk away with those tentacles.
on a related note the search space for https://www.qdayprize.org/curves seems far too small to be a meaningful contest and the rules dont seem to address how they judge the validity of the "quantumness" when sifting such small groups.
11 comments
[ 5.1 ms ] story [ 29.0 ms ] threadA relevant quote: "this is your daily reminder that "How large is the biggest number it can factorize" is NOT a good measure of progress in quantum computing. If you're still stuck in this mindset, you'll be up for a rude awakening."
Related: this is from Dan Bernstein: https://blog.cr.yp.to/20250118-flight.html#moon
A relevant quote: "Humans faced with disaster tend to optimistically imagine ways that the disaster will be avoided. Given the reality of more and more user data being encrypted with RSA and ECC, the world will be a better place if every effort to build a quantum computer runs into some insurmountable physical obstacle"
I agree with what you're saying, but what you're also essentially saying is that QCs are so useless at the moment that the granularity of integers is not enough to measure progress on the hardware.