Talk:Quantum computing

Wiki Education assignment: Technology and Culture

— Assignment last updated by Orahmel (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Open Problems

A new section on Open Problems was added, but it has two major problems. First it is based on a single reference from Dec. 2024 (this month) written by a single author with no significant publication record on the topic. Second the items in this list are so briefly discussed that only someone already knowledgable on the topic would know what was said.

I think the concept of an "Open Problems" section is reasonable, but it should be backed by reliable references from within the field of study and the content should give enough background for a reader to understand how the problem is related to quantum computing. Johnjbarton (talk) 04:04, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

A third major problem is that the text that was added here was cut and pasted from a copyrighted source. If information from this source is ultimately judged worthy enough by local editors to be added to this article, it should only be done so using properly paraphrased text making use of an editor's own words. Regards,  Spintendo  08:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Lasers in crypto and Grover's algorithm

Why is there a picture of a green laser from French wikipedia labeled as a quantum crypto layout? The image is literally shiny but doesn't have anything to do with quantum crypto, unless it is an implied joke on smoke and mirrors.

Grover's algorithm does little or nothing to speed up vs brute force when you include circuit implementation the fact that queries must be sequential, and error correction overhead. The British version of NSA published a paper "On the practical cost of Grover for AES key recovery", Sarah D. and Peter C., UK National Cyber Security Centre, March 22, 2024 https://csrc.nist.gov/csrc/media/Events/2024/fifth-pqc-standardization-conference/documents/papers/on-practical-cost-of-grover.pdf that concludes the practical security impact of Grover on plausible quantum hardware is limited, even for AES-128. Chadnibal (talk) 13:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree about the image and removed it. The interesting Grover algorithm paper should wait until it has either lot of citations or is discussed in a review paper. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Cool, I chuckled happily when I saw the laser was gone.

I'm planning to quote that GCHQ paper in a talk I'm giving in April, was having qualms myself, more now you mention it, are they really a reputable source or do they have spooky motivations? It pulled me in because it seems so clear and consistent. I'm already putting a disclaimer on my footnote for the recent MITRE paper that doesn't give sources and seems to have several mistakes. Chadnibal (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Someone could make the case for the Grover paper. Generally we don't cite conference papers due to the high rates of non-notable results and low review criteria. On the plus side, it may be the that UK Centre has a tall reputation and the conference has higher than normal standards, IDK. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

A bit is not "physical"

One sentence reads as follows:

"A classical bit, by definition, exists in either of two physical states, which can be denoted 0 and 1."

This is misuse of the word "physical".

A bit is a concept, not a physical entity. 2601:204:F181:9410:2191:ADEC:5EE:A9CD (talk) 21:30, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

The light switch in my room disagrees. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:50, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Speculation in "Potential applications"

I deleted two paragraphs of "Potential applications" as not encyclopedic. These are just reports of investments or industrial puffery. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:50, 16 April 2025 (UTC)