You're right I'm wrong, the Quantum factoring algorithm was found by Peter Shor.
John K Clark On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 6:20 PM, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 2/3/2016 2:34 PM, John Clark wrote: > > A recent paper in Nature Communications gives more evidence that > Quantum Computers might produce as big a revolution as > Nanotechnology, Seth Lloyd, Silvano Garnerone and Paolo Zanardi have found > a Quantum algorithms for the topological analysis of data: > > > <http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2016/160125/ncomms10138/full/ncomms10138.html> > http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2016/160125/ncomms10138/full/ncomms10138.html > > Seth Lloyd, the man who found the Quantum factoring algorithm some years > back > > > The one called Shor's algorithm? > > Brent > > says "In a topological description, basic features of the data (How many > holes does it have? How are the different parts connected?) are considered > the same no matter how much they are stretched, compressed, or distorted. > It is often these fundamental topological attributes that are important in > trying to reconstruct the underlying patterns in the real world > > that the data are supposed to represent. It doesn’t matter what kind of > data set is being analyzed. The topological approach of looking for > connections and holes works whether it’s an actual physical hole, or the > data represents a logical argument and there’s a hole in the argument. This > will find both kinds of holes.” > > But Lloyd says the topological approach is too demanding for conventional > computers "Topological analysis represents a crucial way of getting at the > significant features of the data, but it’s computationally very expensive. > This is where quantum mechanics kicks in. The new quantum-based approach > could exponentially speed up such calculations." Lloyd gives this example: > "If you have a data set with 300 points, a conventional approach to > analyzing all the topological features in that system would require a > computer the size of the universe. That is, it would take 2300 (two to the > 300th power) processing units — approximately the number of all the > particles in the universe. In other words, the problem is simply not > solvable in that way. That’s where our algorithm kicks in. Solving the same > problem with the new system, using a quantum computer, would require just > 300 quantum bits — and a device this size may be achieved in the next few > years. Our algorithm shows that you don’t need a big quantum computer to > kick some serious topological butt.” > > John K Clark > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
