On Fri, 6 May 2016 13:48:00 -0700 Sean Lynch <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 12:27 PM, juan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > related > > > > http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1400 > > > > http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2448 > > > These are both about D-Wave's machines, which are not universal > quantum computers. IBM's is universal, Yes, that's why I said "related" =P What I found interesting about the d-wave 'affair' is that they can't even prove that the machines are using some kind of quantum effect. I'd expect the masters of the universe to be a bit less sloppy in scientific matters. > though it's only 5 qubits, not > even as many qubits as they used to factor the number 15. Still, I > think there's plenty of reason to be skeptical of QC, and even if > you're not that skeptical of it, we've still got decades before it'll > be cracking even 1024 bit RSA. I just learned about "topological qbits" - they seem even less practical than ibm's stuff, at least for the time being...
