## Under the Hood of Quantum Computing 156 156

nanotrends writes

*"Gordie Rose, the CTO of Dwave Systems, the venture funded company that plans to offer paid use of a superconducting quantum computer starting in 2007, reveals secrets of his quantum computer construction. It is based on nobium superconducting 'circuits of atoms' and is not RSFQ. (Rapid Single Flux quantum)."*
## Advantages? (Score:5, Interesting)

I'd be very suprised if their quantum computer will be faster than conventional computers by next year. 20 years away, maybe.

## Re:Advantages? (Score:5, Interesting)

## Re:Advantages? (Score:4, Interesting)

"what will be the advantages of paid use of their quantum computer?"I'm sure the NSA and other government agencies have a passing interest in code breaking, which among other things means being able to factor huge numbers quickly [rsasecurity.com]. A quantum computer would (if it contained sufficient logic cells) be able to try all possible factors of a number at the same time, and would thus be able to factor any number almost instantaneously. It would mean the death of most common types of encryption that depend upon the difficulty of factoring as a means of insuring the privacy of data. After all, the government probably has petabytes of encrypted data from their nationwide wiretapping of telephone and Internet [sc.edu] communications they would love to be able to decrypt quickly.

## Carl Sagan Said it Best (Score:3, Interesting)

I paraphrase:

"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"Yet another under construction web page and half baked idea. I pity the investors. And remember what Feynman said (which is still true today):

"No one understands quantum mechanics"Which does not keep us from using the results of a a highly successful theory, but just keep in mind, wave function computing is not going to be easy, but I believe it is possible. And I should know, I'm made of atoms.

## Do they know what they are talking about? (Score:3, Interesting)

no. Take a look at the last paragraph on the page:I think this statement is incorrect [wikipedia.org]. My understanding concurs with what is written in the wiki article:

and

## Re:Advantages? (Score:3, Interesting)

## Re:Advantages? (Score:1, Interesting)

Ahh. Let's break it down, shall we?

NP-complete are decision problems (yes or no), not optimization

*approximate* solutions for NPC - we know how to do those in polynomial time, you don't exactly need a quantum computer there; it's the exact solutions that are hard

approximate solutions for *NPC* - they do however not transform very well between problems so each problem would need a different method (the exact solutions can be transformed)

## Re:Advantages? (Score:4, Interesting)

(Try "Schrodinger's cat" or the "Heisenberg uncertainty principle")

## Re:Advantages? (Score:1, Interesting)

Prime factorization is in NP, so if it is proven NP-Hard, it must be NP-Complete.

## Re:Advantages? (Score:3, Interesting)

mustincrease -- both because you're paying the people who make them more, and because prices are proportional to average income. When income goes up, prices always follow. The only way the cycle could end is if all matter and energy were reduced to 0 value, which is highly unlikely.## Re:QP =? NP (Score:3, Interesting)

Also note that factorization hasn't been *proven* NP-hard, so there may be a different explanaiton for the NSA's advice. They are the world's largest employer of math PhDs, after all, and it's just possible they know something we don't.

In any case, there's a lot of study about what kind of problems a quantum computer could solve in P time: it's *not* all of NP, which is pretty interesting in an abstract way even if QC turns out to be BS.

## Re:Advantages? (Score:3, Interesting)

+

2) Dismantling of public-funded education

=

Aristocracy within 2 or 3 generations because the concentration of wealth at the top will far exceed the paltry pittance at the bottom. People complain about wealth at the top today -- wait til the Gilded Age of Libertarianism takes over.

Did you know Libertarian arguments favor child labor?

1) It's the parent's right to force a child to work. This has been the case for pretty much ever. Parents force their kids to do chores. Parents regularly employ their children in TV and movies. It's a basic tenet of every culture and society that children do work for their parents.

2) Gov't should not deny parental rights to child earnings by telling them their kids have to go to school (assuming we have any since public education is Evil[tm]).

3) The poor will force their children to contribute to household income using basic labor rather than paying for an education and deferring earnings. Obviously, an uneducated child's overall wealth potential decreases dramatically.

4) So, the poor get poorer (and more ignorant) and the rich get richer.

5) The rich, knowing that strict Libertarianism does not favor them, will do what they have always done: change the laws to favor themselves.

Ergo, over time, a Libertarian system favors Aristocracy.

-l