Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

D-Wave Large-Scale Quantum Chip Validated, Says USC Team

Posted by timothy on from the or-they-don't dept.

An anonymous reader writes "A team of scientists says it has verified that quantum effects are indeed at work in the D-Wave processor, the first commercial quantum optimization computer processor. The team demonstrated that the D-Wave processor behaves in a manner that indicates that quantum mechanics has a functional role in the way it works. The demonstration involved a small subset of the chip's 128 qubits, but in other words, the device appears to be operating as a quantum processor."

141 comments

  1. It Still Doesn't Mean Much... by tibit · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Yeah, quantum effects are directly noticeable in the way it operates. Yeah, yeah, whatever. The whole deal isn't about that. It's about whether those quantum effects are actually useful for something. Like, um, making it usefully faster than classical computers. I would be very happy even if they had shown "just" polynomial running time improvements, say executing an O(N^3) algorithm in O(N^2) time. Even that would be a big deal. Somehow, I'm very skeptical that anything of the sort will ever be shown for this particular architecture. I would so like to be wrong on that.

    --
    A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    1. Re:It Still Doesn't Mean Much... by jamesh · · Score: 1

      Yeah, quantum effects are directly noticeable in the way it operates. Yeah, yeah, whatever. The whole deal isn't about that. It's about whether those quantum effects are actually useful for something. Like, um, making it usefully faster than classical computers. I would be very happy even if they had shown "just" polynomial running time improvements, say executing an O(N^3) algorithm in O(N^2) time. Even that would be a big deal. Somehow, I'm very skeptical that anything of the sort will ever be shown for this particular architecture. I would so like to be wrong on that.

      That's where i'm at right now too. I wonder if the future may see my point of view in the same way as those who said people could never travel fast on a steam train because the air would be sucked out of the cabin...

    2. Re:It Still Doesn't Mean Much... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The D Wave computer has demonstrated it's ability to solve optimization problems incredibly fast, and that is incredibly useful for a lot of companies and scientists.

    3. Re:It Still Doesn't Mean Much... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Scientists prove Intel silicon chip conducts electricity!

      A team of scientists says it has verified that electrical effects are indeed at work in the Intel processor. The team demonstrated that the Intel processor behaves in a manner that indicates that electrons have a functional role in the way it works. The demonstration involved a small subset of the chip's silicon traces, but in other words, the device appears to be operating as a circuit.

      Scientists prove abacus beads are mobile!

      A team of scientists says it has verified that bead sliding is indeed at work in the abacus. The team demonstrated that the abacus behaves in a manner that indicates that beads moving back and forth have a functional role in the way it works. The demonstration involved a small subset of the abacus's wooden beads, but in other words, the device appears to be operating as an arithmetic aid.

    4. Re:It Still Doesn't Mean Much... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I always get confused by this O notation. But, why would a quantum computer would reduce the O notation. If you don't fix the algorithm, the processor would still take n or n^2 or n^3, no?

      For what I thought a quantum computer would just actually make the time each "n" takes quite small. But I never thought it would make an O(n^3) run in O(n^2) time at all.

    5. Re:It Still Doesn't Mean Much... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      One small step dude. Maybe one day it will lead to a standard quantum computer. But like searching for life outside our planet, going to the moon was pretty damn cool and so is this.

    6. Re:It Still Doesn't Mean Much... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would be very happy even if they had shown "just" polynomial running time improvements, say executing an O(N^3) algorithm in O(N^2) time.

      This is, sadly, a very common misconception even among people who otherwise understand big-O notation very well. In the real world, there is no such thing as inferring the big-O behavior of an algorithm based on measurements. Big-O is a notation that concerns only what happens for infinitely large input (to be precise, arbitrarily large input). Whatever input you've got in the real world, it's not infinite. Your input is also unlikely to be worst-case and big-O is about worst case behavior unless you specify otherwise, though this is a lesser concern as it is at least possible to construct worst-case input for a given algorithm. In contrast, it's impossible to get your input to be infinite and then run a finite experiment. Big-O is relevant to the real world in certain ways, yes, but not in the way that you think. No empirical observation will allow you to determine the asymptotic complexity of any implementation of any algorithm.

    7. Re:It Still Doesn't Mean Much... by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      They're still working on that small issue of knowing only "where exactly the data is" or "what the data is"... on the plus side all you need do to flip a bit is observe it (but beware of infinite recursion). Personally I'm looking forward to the "Schrodinger Class" of processor... in spite of the strict No Refunds policy for open boxes.

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    8. Re:It Still Doesn't Mean Much... by tibit · · Score: 3, Informative

      You can't fight an exponential or even polynomial complexity merely by reducing constant factors. It doesn't matter what the constant factor is. All it takes is bumping, say, RSA from 4096 to 16384 bits. That's all you need to beat any conceivable reduction in the constant factor. Just think about it.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    9. Re:It Still Doesn't Mean Much... by tibit · · Score: 1

      No empirical observation will allow you to determine the asymptotic complexity of any implementation of any algorithm.

      Said someone who never tried such empirical observations. You're silly.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    10. Re:It Still Doesn't Mean Much... by firewrought · · Score: 4, Informative

      Why would a quantum computer would reduce the O notation?

      Because it's running in multiple worlds simultaneously? It's not just using 1's and 0's but superpositions of the two that are effectively in both states at once. Heh... I'm really don't understand this stuff, but the big deal about quantum computing is that it will make some previously intractable (e.g., non-polynomial) problems accessible to us. All problems in complexity class BQP become, essentially, polynomial on a quantum computer. If you've got enough qbits, among other things.

      --
      -1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
    11. Re:It Still Doesn't Mean Much... by ardor · · Score: 1

      He is actually right. By definition, this cannot give you a priori data. And that is what big O is - a priori information.
      In practice, with measurements, you can take a pretty good guess as to what the complexity is, but you can never know if it is actually correct. This is a common mistake that people make, and can easily cause them to draw incorrect conclusions.

      --
      This sig does not contain any SCO code.
    12. Re: It Still Doesn't Mean Much... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow you have no fucking clue. Big-O is about time complexity for an input size; it's upper-bound (not tight upper bound) in the worst case, but this doesn't mean infinite. It means as the input size (n) increases, the number of operations will increase, proportionally, less than or equal to the function given for O (for some minimum input size). It has nothing to do with infinite size or whatever. (It's also not a tight bound so any O(n**2) is for instance also O(n**3) but that's not particularly useful.)

    13. Re:It Still Doesn't Mean Much... by cavreader · · Score: 2

      Exactly! I am glad just to know that someone is actually working on projects like this. It's not just another generation of current CPU technology it is something new and in time they will either master the technology or abandon the technology if things don't work out. But either way it is just nice to know there are people skilled and dedicated enough to attempt these advances.

    14. Re:It Still Doesn't Mean Much... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A quantum computer can solve public key encryption in O(1) while it takes classical computers O(N^3). Which is the difference between minutes and billions of years.

    15. Re:It Still Doesn't Mean Much... by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No it hasn't.

    16. Re: It Still Doesn't Mean Much... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow you have no fucking clue. Big-O is about time complexity for an input size; it's upper-bound (not tight upper bound) in the worst case, but this doesn't mean infinite. It means as the input size (n) increases, the number of operations will increase, proportionally, less than or equal to the function given for O (for some minimum input size). It has nothing to do with infinite size or whatever. (It's also not a tight bound so any O(n**2) is for instance also O(n**3) but that's not particularly useful.)

      You got it all wrong. Big-O is indeed about the tight upper bound, and the complexity of the input size. And as the number of operations increase, you bet your ass that it will be particularly useful. Oh you bet your ass.

    17. Re:It Still Doesn't Mean Much... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Pedantic nitpick: Quantum computers cannot break public key (RSA) encryption in O(1) time; for a modulus N the time complexity is O(Log(n)^3).

    18. Re:It Still Doesn't Mean Much... by Hentes · · Score: 1

      Theoretically, it should be able to find the minimum of a set of numbers in O(N^0.5) instead of O(N). This is faster than a CPU, but likely slower than an equivalently priced GPU cluster.

    19. Re:It Still Doesn't Mean Much... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you demonstrate your ability to master the apostrophe?

    20. Re:It Still Doesn't Mean Much... by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Indeed. That that have not strongly indicates that they cannot, because this thing is not actually useful.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    21. Re:It Still Doesn't Mean Much... by behrooz0az · · Score: 1

      You just made the only analogy that could make me think this chip is made by J.J. Abrams.

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion. -- Spazmania (174582)
    22. Re: It Still Doesn't Mean Much... by SnowZero · · Score: 1

      You got it all wrong. Big-O is indeed about the tight upper bound, and the complexity of the input size. And as the number of operations increase, you bet your ass that it will be particularly useful. Oh you bet your ass.

      GP is being an ass, and doesn't seem to understand what "asymptotic complexity" means. However, you are incorrect about big-O, which does not need to be a tight bound. You're thinking of big-theta. Wikipedia has a concise summary:
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_theta#Family_of_Bachmann.E2.80.93Landau_notations

    23. Re:It Still Doesn't Mean Much... by amaurea · · Score: 2

      Really? I thought it was 12,000 times slower than a normal computer when solving the one problem it does best, while costing approximately as many times more than said normal computer. That isn't exactly "incredibly fast" or "incredibly useful", is it? Scientists aren't too happy about it either, because the science, if it exists, is not being published.

    24. Re:It Still Doesn't Mean Much... by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      The D Wave computer has demonstrated it's ability to solve optimization problems incredibly fast, and that is incredibly useful for a lot of companies and scientists.

      no it hasn't, even this report says it's just potentially possible for it to solve them faster than traditional cpu.

      the article is a little light on details, but it just says that it uses some quantum effect in some way. you know what that means? it means that technically it's not a _total_ fraud (bang for buck it is a fraud still though).

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    25. Re:It Still Doesn't Mean Much... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      The summary made me laugh. 'scientists says it has verified that quantum effects are indeed at work in the D-Wave processor'. Exactly the same claim could be made about pretty much any vaguely computer: how do they think transistors work?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    26. Re:It Still Doesn't Mean Much... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Yeah, quantum effects are directly noticeable in the way it operates. Yeah, yeah, whatever.

      That's not implausible - quantum effects are directly noticeable in the way your ordinary bipolar junction transistor operates.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    27. Re:It Still Doesn't Mean Much... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      No empirical observation will allow you to determine the asymptotic complexity of any implementation of any algorithm.
      This is nonsense. Show me an algorithm and I tell you its complexity ...
      The rest of your post makes no sense either. "n" is the size of the input. Complexity is relevant for any input size, otherwise we had e.g. not dozens of different sorting algorithms.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    28. Re:It Still Doesn't Mean Much... by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      A quantum computer can solve public key encryption in O(1) while it takes classical computers O(N^3). Which is the difference between minutes and billions of years.

      this isn't that kind of a quantum computer though.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    29. Re:It Still Doesn't Mean Much... by tibit · · Score: 1

      Why are we even having this nitpick fest? You and the GP are just silly. We can easily observe the behavior of something as N is increased. If you can't figure out a difference between N^2 and N^3, then you're simply not trying hard enough, that's all. Sure, the measurement may show N^1.8 or N^2.7, with some measure of uncertainity attached to the exponent, like duh, why even argue about it?! Sure as heck you don't get O(N^integer) from the measurements, heck, you don't even get either O() or Omega(), since those are purely theoretical constructs that, by definition, can't be measured. I could have used a different, more verbose, notation, since obviously there's a bunch of obtuse pricks here. What matters is that it takes fucking long, okay, and whatever non-classical computers demonstrated so far take fucking long to do the same thing okay. Let's be practical, this is not a theoretical discussion.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    30. Re:It Still Doesn't Mean Much... by tibit · · Score: 1

      Good. I won't hold my breath until they actually demonstrate this behavior on a set where it makes a difference. Due to constant factors involved, they may have way more luck with factorization problems, since those can be shown to run fast in the pitiful amounts of "memory" they have available.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    31. Re:It Still Doesn't Mean Much... by tibit · · Score: 1

      What I said. Yeah, yeah, whatever. :)

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    32. Re:It Still Doesn't Mean Much... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always get confused by this O notation. But, why would a quantum computer would reduce the O notation. If you don't fix the algorithm, the processor would still take n or n^2 or n^3, no?
      For what I thought a quantum computer would just actually make the time each "n" takes quite small. But I never thought it would make an O(n^3) run in O(n^2) time at all.

      Simple explanation- you're thinking of parallel processing.
      Quantum processing is more than just being able to make two calculations at the same time. Put very simply, it allows you to achieve in one step that which would normally take several sequential steps.
      As for re-writing algorithms, in many cases all you'd really need is a recompile.. but some situations might call for a new algorithm. Or at least some tweaking.

    33. Re:It Still Doesn't Mean Much... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You mean the IBM CPLEX tests (Part 2)?

      "This said, best solutions CPLEX could find in 30 minutes are still worse than the best ones found using D-Wave black box or Tabu search in 29 problems, equal in 3, and better in only one problem. This is partly explained by the fact that CPLEX not only tries to find good feasible solutions, but it also spends a fair amount of time trying to prove optimality.
      In short, we dramatically improved CPLEX results, but it does not really change the fact that heuristic methods (D-Wave blackbox and Tabu) are finding better quality solutions in a limited amount of time. QAP are definitely not CPLEX sweet spot, at least using the simple MIQP model above."

      The next chip is coming out in 2014 and will have 2048 qubits. It's easier to find useful problems at that scale.

    34. Re:It Still Doesn't Mean Much... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, CPLEX is an example of a bad comparison. Some CS guys wrote a program that is faster than the DWave chip. I'm not sure what the 12000x faster software is that GP refers to, but there's this: http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1400#comment-76372 Much more informed discussion is also on that blog.

    35. Re: It Still Doesn't Mean Much... by Rational · · Score: 1

      The quantum effects are obviously useful for *something*, or D-Wave wouldn't manage to be selling these things. As far as I know, nobody has made any claims of general-purpose quantum computing.

      --
      "Be nice, veer left, and never stop thinking" Iain Banks - Walking On Glass
    36. Re:It Still Doesn't Mean Much... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Because a quantum computer has access to operations that a classical computer does not have access to. A quantum computer can evaluate a function on all classical inputs at once; the problem is that you cannot read out the complete result (you can do so by repeating the calculation exponentially often, but then, you lose the advantage over classical computers). Therefore quantum algorithms are about bringing the interesting features into a form that can be easily (efficiently) read out.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    37. Re:It Still Doesn't Mean Much... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But, why would a quantum computer would reduce the O notation.

      Because an ordinary computer might need to calculate something for every input, i.e. try for 1, 2, 3, 4, ... n. That is "n" attempts, each taking time. Only one of them yields the interesting answer, but you don't know that until you tried.

      The quantum computer can do the calculation on a quantum number - once. Due to superposition, the quantum number can stand in for any of the numbers between 1 and n. So when the calculation is done once, it is simultaneously done for all numbers. When you read out the answer, you can only get the answer for one of the numbers - but you can arrange to get the interesting one. So the quantum computer needs only one try, instead of "n". And that makes the calculations a lot faster.

      Consider breaking a code by trying all possible keys. This takes a long time, unless you can try all the keys in one operation. And then get to know which key (out of all possible) was the right one. Possible with a sufficiently large quantum computer.

      Now, quantum computer is in their infancy, so they are currently slow compared to state of the art normal computers. But the possibilities are intriguing.

    38. Re: It Still Doesn't Mean Much... by tibit · · Score: 1

      The quantum effects are obviously useful for *something*, or D-Wave wouldn't manage to be selling these things.

      Uh-uh, yeah, sure. That's not how real life works, unfortunately.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    39. Re:It Still Doesn't Mean Much... by amaurea · · Score: 1

      I see you didn't read my link. CPLEX is discussed there. Yes, D-Wave is faster than CPLEX. But does that matter when other classical implementations exist that are *much* faster than CPLEX? The link disucsses one two such implementations: One, written in plain python (including direct for loops in python, not exactly a recipe for efficiency), that still beats D-Wave by a factor for 120 in speed. It is available on a git repository which is also linked from that article. The other one is a C implementation of the same algorithm, which is 100 times faster than the python version (not unusual), and hence 12000 times faster than D-Wave, and produces the same results. This has been confirmed by others who have run both CPLEX and this program for the same problems, and gotten the same results - see the comment section at the end of the article.

    40. Re:It Still Doesn't Mean Much... by amaurea · · Score: 1

      The link I gave was to a more updated article written by the author of the blog comment you linked to.

    41. Re: It Still Doesn't Mean Much... by steveb3210 · · Score: 1

      I was under the impression Big-O implies the existance of a constant c, for all x > c, f(x) > g(x) where f(x) is the function your bounding it by and g(x) is the function you're trying to describe..

      Hence, its just saying "sooner or later", this will always be a bound...

  2. The question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Can it help crack today's cryptosystems, in what way, and how fast.

    If it is able to do it then someone is doing it and we need to act.

    1. Re:The question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No. It cannot. It can't do anything even as close as to as well as conventional semiconductors.

      The point is, that this might one day have the potential to be more than electrical circuits, but for now, it's really just an interesting research project.

    2. Re:The question is by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Informative

      Wrong kind of quantum computer. This does quantum annealing.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    3. Re:The question is by WaywardGeek · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not too surprisingly, when a large US military contractor became a major purchaser of D-Wave equipment, all the company claims about being able to factor large integers vanished. D-Wave was going to have a blog series on it. I looked at it's architecture carefully, and yes, if the D-Wave machine has low enough noise, then a 512-qbit D-Wave machine should be able to factor integers close to 500 bits long. The next bigger machine could tackle 2,000 bit integers. The machine seems almost perfectly suited to this problem. The trick is dealing with noise. No one at D-Wave claims that their machine is perfectly coherent all the time during the annealing process. If 1 of the 512 bits suddenly drops out of quantum coherence, it will still act like a normal simulated annealing element until it re-enters coherence. Is noise like that enough to throw off detection of that one minimum solution? I don't know. I do feel that quantum effects will have a positive impact up to some temperature, after which it will just act like a normal annealing machine. I think there will be a phase change at some temperature where instead of qbits occasionally dropping out of coherence, just adding some noise to the solution, there will be so many out of quantum coherence that they will not be able to function at a chip-wide quantum level, and there will be no chance of finding that minimum energy solution.

      --
      Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
    4. Re:The question is by WaywardGeek · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I just went googling for my old posts about how to do integer factorization with D-Wave. Guess what? GONE! I thought I'd posted it in enough hard to scrub places... Anyway, all this machine is does is minimize an energy equation. I found somebody who had integer factorization coded as an energy equation as the sum of squared terms, but with the D-Wave machine, it does that naturally, and you don't need to square anything. I've got a lot going on at work, my mother is being sued, and I'm doing some genetics stuff. Do I really need to go back and recreate the integer factoring equation?

      --
      Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
    5. Re:The question is by BradleyUffner · · Score: 5, Funny

      I just went googling for my old posts about how to do integer factorization with D-Wave. Guess what? GONE!

      That's what you get for observing them.

    6. Re:The question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes. Obviously you do. And you need to post it everywhere again. Duh.

    7. Re:The question is by Bengie · · Score: 1

      Boeing and NASA are using DWAVE computers to crunch very specific types of data almost 10,000 times faster. A little more than just "research"

    8. Re:The question is by WaywardGeek · · Score: 1

      Google this: dwave integer factorization New Scientist

      Do you see all the "New Scientist" links near the top? Click on one of them. Of course you don't see it. These links started to fade to obscurity while I was writing this short response. If you do find one, you'll find the link goes nowhere.

      --
      Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
    9. Re:The question is by WaywardGeek · · Score: 1

      By the way, the title of the New Scientist article should be "Controversial quantum computer beats factoring record"

      --
      Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
    10. Re:The question is by WaywardGeek · · Score: 1

      Awe crud... it only factored 143. I factored 300+ bit numbers with custom algorithms in Python, which only sounds impressive until you find out what others have done. Still.. why are links to integer factorization by D-Wave machine being removed from Google results?

      --
      Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
    11. Re:The question is by __aasqbs9791 · · Score: 0

      You can either know the exact equation or it's exact location on the internet, but the Uncertainty principle clearly says you can't know both at the same time. We obviously know which he chose now.

    12. Re:The question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Again, you should re-write and publish these algorithms. Submit them to the EFF next time.

      We'd all love to see them.

    13. Re:The question is by gweihir · · Score: 1

      No. So far everything points to this device not actually being able to do anything useful faster than classical computers.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    14. Re:The question is by gweihir · · Score: 1

      10'000 is in the range that specialized chips give you over general-purpose computers. You get it a bit cheaper though with classical chips, but nobody is doing it as it is still not worthwhile doing.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    15. Re:The question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because Google has turned to crap?

      Sometime in the past 2 or 3 years it's search quality begin diminishing significantly. And that applies to both the computer science stuff I research, as well as legal stuff.

      I would try Bing, but I suspect the better response is to stop relying on search engines so much, or "the cloud" in general, and make sure I have my own house in order regarding data management and preservation.

    16. Re:The question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems already solved pretty well, see this:

      https://github.com/exaexa/codecrypt

    17. Re:The question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But but but! They said the military is 30 years ahead of current technology!
      Fucking lying ass hippies!

    18. Re:The question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21699-controversial-quantum-computer-beats-factoring-record.html#.Uc67FFTuKtU seems to work (was at the top of the first page for me).

    19. Re:The question is by kermidge · · Score: 1

      I'm glad to know that I'm not the only one to think Google search results are getting worse. Not only do I find it more difficult to get the kind of results that are germane to my query but what does come back is also skewed to commercial sites rather than nuts-and-bolts stuff.

      I'm also saddened that search is getting worse, of course. From the few times I've used it recently, I haven't found Bing to be much better.

    20. Re:The question is by fa2k · · Score: 1

      Seems already solved pretty well, see this:

      https://github.com/exaexa/codecrypt

      Way to go AC answer my question before I got to ask it :) (don't have mod points)

    21. Re:The question is by quax · · Score: 1

      Please recreate it if you can find the time. I regularly blog about quantum computing and are happy to feature it, and make sure it doesn't get lost again.

    22. Re:The question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not today's cryptosystems. A 512-bit quantum computer can only crack 512-bit keys or shorter. And only if the crypto algorithm fits the computer. But if they have a 512-bit machine today, chances are they can make a 4096-bit thing too...

    23. Re:The question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Something like this is the Equation?

      Here's a generator function:

      G(x0,x1,...,y0,y1,...) = (N - sum(i)sum(j){ 2^(i+j) * x_i * y_j } )^2 + prod(i){1-x_i} + prod(j) {1-y_j}

      where:

      N = the prime-composite integer to be factored
      x = candidate factor #1 (integer)
      y = candidate factor #2 (integer)
      x_i = i-th bit of x
      y_j = j-th bit of y
      sum(i) = the sum over index i, from bits 0:Lx-1 where Lx = the number of bits in x
      sum(j) = the sum over index j, from bits 0:Ly-1 where Ly = the number of bits in y
      prod(i) = the product over index i, from bits 1:Lx-1
      prod(j) = the product over index j, from bits 1:Ly-1

      x0 and y0 would be set to 1, since we know x and y are odd numbers.
      The second and third terms penalize the trivial solution where x = 1 or y = 1.

      http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Why-does-DWave-not-talk-1416467.S.204051235

  3. Imagine a computer with this Quantum processor by Spy+Handler · · Score: 0

    and a Quantum Fireball hard drive... mind boggles

    1. Re:Imagine a computer with this Quantum processor by binarylarry · · Score: 1

      Quantum CPU + Quantum Fireball HD = HADOUKEN!

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
  4. Was anyone really surprised by this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I think everyone pretty much knew this with any even remotely entry level knowledge on the topic.

    It was doing things that no classical computer could do in any reasonable time at the size it is.
    Those benchmarks not too far back especially proved this fact.

    I guess now though it is good that it is 100% confirmed so the morons can shut the hell up about it.
    Looking forward to see what their new 512Qubit system could do. (other than make encryption useless within a human lifetime)

    1. Re:Was anyone really surprised by this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes i am playing doom on it right now, its awful fast
      the pixles are everywhere

    2. Re:Was anyone really surprised by this? by Empiric · · Score: 1

      (other than make encryption useless within a human lifetime)

      Not sure about that. Though qubits are great for prime factorization (the one-way function upon which mainstream cryptography relies, and breaks if it becomes no longer in practical terms one-way), I'm not sure that it would help for, say, one-time pads or chained-XOR encryption methods (notably, though trivially simple to implement, IIRC using it immediately disqualified an encryption system from being legally exportable). I think in those cases you end up with the quantum algorithm not finding the actual message out of all the possible messages the data could represent, but all the possible messages the message could have been.

      I'll now await correction from an actual specialist in the field...

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    3. Re:Was anyone really surprised by this? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Why would a quantum annealer help break encryption? Isn't that a different field of quantum problem (factoring)?

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    4. Re:Was anyone really surprised by this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You mean the benchmarks where a classical computer was faster? And okay, it's 'quantum'. Shor's algorithm doesn't run on a quantum annealer... the marketing department of the company that sells them is less optimistic than you.

      What are you, a quantum fanboy?

    5. Re:Was anyone really surprised by this? by Icegryphon · · Score: 1
      I have video of the Vesuvius Chip that Google and Nasa are working with for AI.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Wlsd9mljiU

    6. Re:Was anyone really surprised by this? by timeOday · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, I can tell you that no amount of computation will help for a one-time pad. That would be essentially the same as decrypting an empty sheet of paper. There is no information in either half of an OTP duo; only in the differences between the halves.

    7. Re:Was anyone really surprised by this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I mean the 439 benchmark just recently that absolutely destroyed classic computers.
      Mere seconds compared to over half an hour quicker.

      You are way behind, Son.

    8. Re:Was anyone really surprised by this? by the+gnat · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No, I mean the 439 benchmark just recently that absolutely destroyed classic computers. Mere seconds compared to over half an hour quicker.

      That was a terrible benchmark. They measured performance against possibly the most inefficient algorithm possible (using a third-party implementation) - not even remotely doing the same type of computations. That was where the "3600-fold" improvement came from. Some other computer scientists spent a bit of time optimizing an algorithm (also annealing, I think) for conventional computers in response, with the eventual result that their implementation was faster than the D-Wave. Which makes the entire effort sound like $10 million to avoid writing better software in the first place.

      It vaguely reminds me of all of the GPU benchmarks I've seen where single-precision floating-point performance on the GPU is compared to double-precision performance on the CPU. Except orders of magnitude worse.

    9. Re:Was anyone really surprised by this? by Chuckstar · · Score: 1

      But it doesn't matter what the times were for one specific run of the calculation. The question is how the two algorithms scale.

      I saw a blog somewhere that the guy claimed the improved classical algorithm scales at the same rate as the quantum annealing algorith, meaning no gain for DWave. But there's wasn't any kind of proof in that post, just a claim.

    10. Re:Was anyone really surprised by this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I have video of the Vesuvius Chip that Google and Nasa are working with for AI. "

      Didn't Vesuvius erupt and kill everybody?

    11. Re:Was anyone really surprised by this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are a few issues here.

      First, it is impossible to prove asymptotic time complexity of an algorithm (or special purpose machine) by simply running it a bunch of times, and there is nothing (at least from what I have seen) to suggest that DWave has published enough information to properly (that is, mathematically) prove that their machine works at a better complexity class than what is achievable by algorithms written specifically for those same problems on a classical computer.

      Second, if you insist on relying on the ugly kludge of trying to prove better asymptotic run time by simply using benchmarks, you're still in rather a bad situation, since DWave has not published any benchmarks that are significantly better than what can be achieved by a *competently chosen* algorithm on a classical computer. And since they have only given one of their machines to the university (USC) which has been basically carrying the torch for them in academia for quite some time, no one else -- particularly none of the academics who have been vocally critical of their claims -- is able to directly or indirectly use such a machine to make (or unmake, as might still be the outcome) their case.

      Finally, the reality is simply that DWave was eminently happy to claim that the supposed 3600x performance increase proved that their machine was doing Something Special; now that it has been established to basically anyone who doesn't have his head up his very own ass that the claim was wildly overblown, they are trying to fall back on claims that on some unspecified larger problem they will perform better. Given that the proper comparison (meaning the one that chose its algorithm wisely) showed virtually no difference between a ~$10,000,000 DWave machine and a ~$2000 PC, one cannot help but wonder what sort of problem size would actually be required to see a cost benefit from the DWave and if said problem size is feasible (given other issues like storage and memory constraints) and useful.

      I do hope that DWave's efforts bear some fruit; it would be disappointing if it turns out to be without any practical use, and even more disappointing if it turns out to have been a hoax (particularly given the rather impressive credentials of some involved with the company). However, this entire situation seems to underscore one of the major benefits of doing research -- particularly basic research -- in academia with publications all along the way. If DWave had been publishing anywhere near as much information as is expected from their counterparts working on quantum computing in academia, there would be far less reason at this point to consider that they are going down a dead-end road, or that they are mistaken about their machine's properties, or that (worst of all possibilities) they are deliberately misrepresenting the inner workings of their machine.

    12. Re:Was anyone really surprised by this? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but absolutely nothing has been confirmed and the moron is you. If you want to see "quantum effects at work", have a look at any LED. This does not mean anything and the wording is carefully designed to obscure that fact.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    13. Re:Was anyone really surprised by this? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Indeed it is. A quantum annealer is not a very useful thing, and it is not really faster than classical computers optimized for this.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    14. Re:Was anyone really surprised by this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are known quantum algorithms to crack RSA, DSA, and similar. In other words, there are known quantum solutions to prime factorization (RSA) and discrete logarithms (DSA).

      However, cryptographers know plenty of other public-key algorithms for which there are no known quantum solutions that can dent the computational complexity. I'm unsure if any of those algorithms are provably impervious, though. I'm not a mathematician, just a security engineer. But rest assured that if ubiquitous quantum computers appeared overnight, there are practical alternatives to RSA that could be used, at least in the short-term.

      As for secret-key algorithms such as block ciphers, quantum computers don't help much. There's no mathematical structure there that has a quantum short-cut.

    15. Re:Was anyone really surprised by this? by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Whats the asymptotic time of a classical computer simulated annealing algorithm?

      For the record, for simulated annealing to guarantee an optimal result the asymptotic worst case time is O(infinity) .. worse than an exhaustive search of any finite space.

      Worst case O(infinity) complexity simply isnt interesting in the realm of stochastic algorithms, average case cannot be easily deduced, and best case O(1) is also not interesting.

      Sometimes experiment is the only way to ascertain how something scales in the average case for some fuzzy difficult-to-specify metric of completeness. This is why nobody can tell you the optimal parameters for nearly all stochastic optimization algorithms, with the main two competitor fields to Simulated Annealing (SA) being the variants of genetic algorithms (GA's) and the variants of estimation of distribution algorithms* (EDA's.)

      Currently it is widely believed that the EDA's are the best optimizers for most problems, where best is defined as requiring the fewest number of evaluations in the average case for a specific solution quality.

      None of these algorithms are any good for needle-in-haystack problems, which is what prime factorization is.

      (*) Some EDA's are "incorrectly" named Genetic Algorithms, such as the Compact Genetic Algorithm and its variants. They were given their name not for how they work, but instead for the way the search propagates through the solution space: the CGA is exactly equal in runtime to a simple GA with a crossover rate of 0.5

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    16. Re:Was anyone really surprised by this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which makes the entire effort sound like $10 million to avoid writing better software in the first place.

      Not unlike the entire computer hardware industry.

    17. Re:Was anyone really surprised by this? by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      Which makes the entire effort sound like $10 million to avoid writing better software in the first place.

      How much time/money did they spend optimizing the software?

      I always have to remind people of this in my line of work. They'll spend 10 minutes optimizing an equation that only gets run once. Sure it saved an hour of processing time with that 10 minutes of work but that 10 minutes of human resources was worth more than 100 hours of CPU time.

    18. Re:Was anyone really surprised by this? by the+gnat · · Score: 1

      How much time/money did they spend optimizing the software?

      That's a good question - I think it was not insignificant. And I agree that optimization by hand is often a terribly inefficient solution. However, I think this blog post by Scott Aaronson makes a good counter-argument:

      Some people might claim it’s “unfair” to optimize the classical simulated annealing code to take advantage of the quirks of the D-Wave problem. But think about it this way: D-Wave has spent ~$100 million, and hundreds of person-years, optimizing the hell out of a special-purpose annealing device, with the sole aim of solving this one problem that D-Wave itself defined. So if we’re serious about comparing the results to a classical computer, isn’t it reasonable to have one professor and a few postdocs spend a few months optimizing the classical code as well?

      Now, it's possible this is unfair to the D-Wave computer: it is totally unclear to me how the different algorithms scale, and whether the D-Wave device is actually more versatile than this implies. However, the evidence for this has yet to be presented.

  5. Great Scott! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Great... now the NSA can record everything we do *and* everything we don't do in all possible parallel universes... Welp, the analog world was nice while it lasted I guess.

    -- stoops

    1. Re:Great Scott! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      1. This isn't a general quantum computer. It's a "quantum annealer".
      2. Not all classical encryption is necessarily vulnerable to quantum computing.

    2. Re:Great Scott! by gweihir · · Score: 2

      For block-ciphers, the key-bits are halves. For example AES-256 remains completely secure even with a working general quantum computer. For AES-128, it would need a lot more than 128 bits and it would still need to break 64 bits. But constant factors do matter and there is reason to believe general quantum computers (if they ever work) will not be able to do many steps per second.

      RSA is a bit different, it could be in trouble. Bit there is always dlog crypto, and AFAIK, quantum computers do not help against that.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    3. Re:Great Scott! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just FYI...

      - The effect of Grover Search ("security bits doubling") of the search in O(n^0.5) is not that dramatic at all -- for brute-force attacks, you still need a decision tool that decides whether the experimentally-deciphered plaintext is the text you're looking for. AND you certainly will meet more than one valid (say, well formatted and correct English) plaintext. So it doesn't really break it, you still need some good information about what the plaintext should contain.

      - All nubmer-theoretic based problems are reduced to log-times by quantum computing Shor's algorithm, as it was extended to solve dlog as well, and works on any group regardless whether it is numeric or made of elliptic curves. This breaks original RSA, DSA, ElGamal, Diffie-Hellman and EC-based stuff like ECRSA/ECDSA.

      But hey, there already are quantum-intractable practical cryptosystems :) see
      http://pqcrypto.org/
      https://github.com/exaexa/codecrypt
      etc...

    4. Re:Great Scott! by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Certainly there are cryptographic methods that can survive a quantum attack, but are any of them public key?

      The world runs on public key encryption, allowing two machines to set up a hard to break encryption without the need for priori private channels of communication to pass otherwise vulnerable keys.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    5. Re:Great Scott! by gweihir · · Score: 1

      You need to be able to get the full modulus into the Quantum Computer. At this time, they are still stuck somewhere at a few entangled bits (record in 2012 was a factorization of 21, i.e. 5 bits, up from 4 bits in 2001 for factoring 15 ), while RSA-2048 is standard today if they proceed at this speed, RSA-2048 will be in trouble in the year 20k . Hence, this is not a concern today and may never become one. In fact real quantum computers may never grow to sizes where they become useful.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  6. This could be huge by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    If this really works, it could be huge. One of the interesting things about quantum computing is that there has been a fair amount of algorithm development done for quantum computers even though they are barely out of the concept stage.

    A bit dated but nice general background article on quantum computers:
    The Quantum Computer

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    1. Re:This could be huge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is not a "Quantum Computer" in that sense of the word.

      The device easily finds "rest states" of qubits. It's basically a specialty ASIC that performs a few steps of a few different algorithms very well. (imagine taking blobs of clay, shaping them to any shapes you like, and dropping them on the ground (or through a sheet/material with holes in it BEFORE it hits the ground)

      That's basically all the thing does. Impost states onto atoms (correct me if I'm wrong, I believe the qubits are molecules in D-WAVE's approach) then let's them settle close to attractors based on their energy / spin / electrical shape.

      If you can find a use for the thing, It does it well. if you can't, join the crowd.

    2. Re:This could be huge by the+gnat · · Score: 2

      there has been a fair amount of algorithm development done for quantum computers even though they are barely out of the concept stage

      As the AC above me notes, most of those algorithms won't run on this particular computer. Building a more general-purpose quantum computer is vastly more difficult - this is not even remotely my field of expertise, but from what I've read it has something to do with error-correction. D-Wave is essentially taking a huge shortcut to end up with a vastly less powerful (but probably still unique) technology. It's possible that this will turn out to have been a wise course; the best-case scenario is that their system is successful enough within its limited domain to promote more aggressive development of a more conventional machine - either by an expanded D-Wave or someone else with deep enough pockets.

    3. Re:This could be huge by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Thank you for that clarification.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    4. Re:This could be huge by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      I see. That is helpful. Thank you for that clarification.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    5. Re:This could be huge by gweihir · · Score: 1

      That is the basic ingredient of any good scam "if this really works, it could be huge". Then use enough obfuscation that even "experts" are confused, and you can seel the most pathetic things at a high price.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  7. 2 Standard Questions to Evaluate any tech by flappinbooger · · Score: 1

    1) Can I run Linux on it?

    2) Can I mine bitcoin with it?

    --
    Flappinbooger isn't my real name
    1. Re:2 Standard Questions to Evaluate any tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3) Imagine a Beowulf cluster of those bad boys!

    2. Re:2 Standard Questions to Evaluate any tech by guruevi · · Score: 4, Funny

      1) Yes
      2) No
      --next calculation--
      1) No
      2) Yes

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    3. Re:2 Standard Questions to Evaluate any tech by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      If 1) then 2). Inelegant choice of questions.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    4. Re:2 Standard Questions to Evaluate any tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) Nope. it requires a co-processor to run even trivial code. I guess you could use the d-wave to find the... ummn.. lowest.. yeah, I got nothing here.
      2) nope*.

      *=Though in theory, you could SOMEWHAT use qubits to follow the SHA curve, it wouldn't really be any better than a really tiny ASIC. I'm not an engineer, so this number is pulled from my posterior, but I expect once asic's get down to the 5-7nm range doing SHA, you're getting close to the limits of classical "solve the lowest energy state". In THEORY (and with MILLIONS of qubits) you could skip right to this phase, for SOME algorithms. (though the people that have d-wave's 128-256 bit units have yet to even MODEL simple algorithms on the things.. so...)

    5. Re:2 Standard Questions to Evaluate any tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can it run Crysis?

    6. Re:2 Standard Questions to Evaluate any tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they really do have quantum computers that can do NP-hard things in reasonable amounts of time, this could kill Bitcoin along with all sorts of other encryption.

    7. Re:2 Standard Questions to Evaluate any tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Find the lowest amount of memory to run X well.

      Protip: There is no lowest amount.

  8. What about maintenance? by jennatalia · · Score: 5, Funny

    Are we going to need quantum mechanics to work on these chips and computers?

    1. Re:What about maintenance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For compiler design you will. Or for assembly as well. Once someone writes a C compiler for it I'll be interested.

    2. Re:What about maintenance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or I should say

      For compiler design you will. Or for assembly as well. Once someone writes a C compiler for it you won't even need to know the name "Albert Einstein".

    3. Re:What about maintenance? by tbid18 · · Score: 1

      Or I should say

      For compiler design you will. Or for assembly as well. Once someone writes a C compiler for it you won't even need to know the name "Albert Einstein".

      That's good, because Albert Einstein was not fond of quantum theory ;-).

  9. "appears to be" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    device appears to be operating as a quantum processor

    But are you sure? In a quantum world, can you really be sure of anything?

  10. Actually... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2

    the device appears to be operating as a quantum processor

    Maybe it both is and isn't, until you have a look at it.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:Actually... by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      the device appears to be operating as a quantum processor

      Maybe it both is and isn't, until you have a look at it.

      Or, we exist in the universe where appears to be operating as a quantum processor, and in another universe right next door it's not and instead you're making this joke about Sigurdur Thordarson existing as a superposition of both a WikiLeak's employee and FBI informant.

    2. Re:Actually... by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      Ob. User Friendly

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  11. Re:'incredibly' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Fixed that for you, you left out the first/primary definition as shown below...

    incredibly
    Adverb

            1. To a great degree; extremely: "incredibly brave".
            2. Used to introduce a statement that is hard to believe; strangely: "incredibly, he was still alive".

    Synonyms
    unbelievably

  12. Re:'incredibly' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    do you know what the word credible means... yeah english evolves... or devolves. whatever

  13. Quantum Annealing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I think this is the same group I read about in Scott Aaronson's blog post last month: D-Wave: Truth finally starts to emerge. There is indirect evidence that the D-Wave machine is actually doing quantum annealing rather than classical annealing, which is a great accomplishment, but quantum computing is still a long way from being practical. And the D-Wave machine is no faster than classical simulated annealing running on a much cheaper normal computer.

  14. Re: 'incredibly' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yeah well the results aren't great either so i guess you fail twice

  15. quantum mechanics has a functional role... by alienzed · · Score: 1

    Is there anything in the universe in which quantum mechanics does not have a functional role?

    --
    Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
    1. Re:quantum mechanics has a functional role... by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      Maybe

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  16. I don't get it. by xyourfacekillerx · · Score: 2

    I don't want to pay $32 USD for the paper. Am I the only one who can't figure out what they proved and how? The paper's abstract doesn't help much to balance the media's interpretation.

    1. Re:I don't get it. by the+gnat · · Score: 4, Informative

      I am pretty sure that this 7-month-old arXiv preprint corresponds to the Nature Communications paper. The titles and author lists are identical, but the abstract deviates, so who knows what changes it went through in revision (I don't have access to the official paper either, even at the university where I work). But presumably it covers the same ground, and it looks like all of the figures from the official are in the preprint.

      (Yo, fuck Nature Publishing Group.)

    2. Re:I don't get it. by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      They are quite similar, though the Nature paper has been substantially edited (it is 30% shorter).

  17. Re:intel dead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm pretty sure that Intel CPUs still kick the shit out of this thing performance-wise. Quantum computing may one day become the thing, but for now it's just a novelty.

  18. Re:intel dead? by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 2, Informative

    It won't become the thing for general computing use. There are specific applications where quantum operations can compute faster, but if it's a matter of what computers are normally used for, standard digital computing hardware is the thing.

    That said, quantum processor cores may become an accessory you can buy for your computer, complete with the software needed to set up quantum optimization problems, and high end scientific workstations might have them built in some day.

  19. Link to article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For anyone interested, I believe this is the article TFA refers to:

    http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/130628/ncomms3067/full/ncomms3067.html

    A preprint appears to be available on arXiv:

    http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.1739

  20. SOMEONE EXPLAIN THIS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone explain what this thing is, what it does, how it works, etc. in a way that a five year old could understand.

    TIA

  21. We've been waiting! by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

    And it does nothing. And everything. It defines what you want it to do; technically it's already done it.

    I'll pay $903,845,908,435 for one!

  22. I'll bet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they ship Windows 8 on it, no one will ever use it.

  23. Information in ArXiv by drolli · · Score: 1

    Since i stumbled back then over a related preprint:
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.4595

    Everything which needs to be said is said there.

  24. Re:Posting from NW AR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So are you.

  25. Quantum... by ruiner13 · · Score: 1

    Sounds like we are on the road to a good Quantum Leap! I can't wait to meet Al!

    --

    today is spelling optional day.

  26. mine too by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    the six core AMD in my machine also depends on quantum effects. it can also do any calculation this quantum annealer can do.

  27. Re:'incredibly' by beelsebob · · Score: 1

    yes, so to be incredibly brave one would have to be brave to the point where most people would not find it credible. That is, extremely brave.

  28. The big ticket question by quax · · Score: 1

    Can it outperform classical computers?

    This remains to be seen for the time being, although early benchmarking was enough to convince Google to shell out some cash.

    Nevertheless, there is another set of benchmark results to be released soon, and those may spell a different picture. Unfortunately, I am not at all convinced that I can already win my bet on D-Wave with the current chip generation.

    Of course 'hardliners' like Scott Aaronson maintain that quantum annealing will never get there in the first place.

    At any rate a fascinating story to follow.

  29. Make it run the interwebs! by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    That way there might be a state where there are no cats on the internet. Maybe.

    Just make sure no one actually looks at the internet...