Let us say you have 64 qubits representing all possible keys. Now do the encryption and xor with known ciphertext. Now you have 64 new qubits, with a superposition of 2^64 states, only one of which is all zeroes. However when you put that together with the 64 bits representing all possible keys, you don't have a superposition of 2^28 states, only of 2^64 states, since each state in the result corresponds to exactly on "key state".
Now consider the 128 qubits together as a set. You have to pull out the one state which has all zeros in 64 lsq (least significant qubits). You can do a bit operation, for example, that combines the key bitwise with the result so that only if the result is all zeros will it leave the key intact, otherwise it will zero out all the key qubits (a small handwave here). Now you have a supeposition of 2^64 states, where all except one state is all ZERO qubits, and the one exception is the key you want. Now you have do some operation (MASSIVE handwave) to filter out which qubit is ALL zeros and which is one one and (2^64 - 1) zeros superposed. I am told this can be done, but I have no idea how.
First, the team took a qubit A in superposition and a qubit B in either state zero or one. Next, they coupled the two qubits using a microwave focused on a third qubit, which entangled the other two. Nearly instantaneously, both qubits would be in superposition and the coupling would be turned off. Finally, the superposition for qubit A would remain -- preserving its initial quantum state.
I have been staring at this for quite a while wihtout quite getting it. Did the superposition of A get transferred to B or not?
Couldn't you actually summarize what is new in this development instead of going on and on about qubits?
So let me try to quote the relevant bits (hehe) from the article:
Until late last year, if you had qubit A and you needed it to be coupled to qubit B in order change the state of qubit B, you'd have to keep that link constantly active. This link -- the coupling -- is made possible by quantum entanglement. But keeping the link active is a problem because it will also change the state of qubit A -- when you only want to change the state of qubit B.
...
For many years, scientists have been trying to figure out how to couple qubits for very short periods of time, just long enough to conduct a two-qubit operation, and to immediately shut it off once completed.
If controlling this coupling can be achieved, then larger computer logic operations should work.
...
For many years, scientists have been trying to figure out how to couple qubits for very short periods of time, just long enough to conduct a two-qubit operation, and to immediately shut it off once completed.
If controlling this coupling can be achieved, then larger computer logic operations should work.
The story says that Brazil will now "get the drug from a factory in India". This means it is not just Brazil that is violating the patent, but also India. Yet all the discussion here has only been about Brazil's end of it. How about India? On what grounds does India violate the patent, and does Merck have no legal remedy in India against this?
Batteries can last long enough to generate a new number every minute for a couple years, and digital clocks are good enough not to go out of sync for that long. Even if you are off by a few seconds, it is not a big deal because the server can simply check previous and next numbers in the sequence, while still not allowing the same number to be used more than once to complete a transaction.
Traditional credit cards already have expiry dates in the two year range, so I don't see the problem.
That is what Britain needs, yesterday.
This unwritten constitution business gives too much power to the political class, and they are obviously not above exploiting it to the max.
Reading the details in the story. even the earlier "process" had no judicial oversight and was run by the federal cops. The only difference now is that the info can be requested directly by the state cops instead of going through the center, and it is thus faster.
Been using the fluorescent light bulbs for a few years now, and while they use less power, the do cost more, and unlike what is promised on the package, they need replacement as often as the incandescent kind, in my experience, so probably a wash in terms of lifetime cost.
From my experience, the FORTRAN community is the most resistant among programmers to switch languages. Even F99 hasn't got much traction with them.
So, best of luck with Fortress.
Slashdot Mirror
Why does it take $10 to flag a row in a database table as being "frozen"?
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/08/12 22239
Just speak clearly into the phone. Any phone.
During ads,
or will that violate my Terms of Service?
OK.
NOT!
Thanks for the choice.
Let us say you have 64 qubits representing all possible keys. Now do the encryption and xor with known ciphertext. Now you have 64 new qubits, with a superposition of 2^64 states, only one of which is all zeroes. However when you put that together with the 64 bits representing all possible keys, you don't have a superposition of 2^28 states, only of 2^64 states, since each state in the result corresponds to exactly on "key state".
Now consider the 128 qubits together as a set. You have to pull out the one state which has all zeros in 64 lsq (least significant qubits). You can do a bit operation, for example, that combines the key bitwise with the result so that only if the result is all zeros will it leave the key intact, otherwise it will zero out all the key qubits (a small handwave here). Now you have a supeposition of 2^64 states, where all except one state is all ZERO qubits, and the one exception is the key you want. Now you have do some operation (MASSIVE handwave) to filter out which qubit is ALL zeros and which is one one and (2^64 - 1) zeros superposed. I am told this can be done, but I have no idea how.
First, the team took a qubit A in superposition and a qubit B in either state zero or one. Next, they coupled the two qubits using a microwave focused on a third qubit, which entangled the other two. Nearly instantaneously, both qubits would be in superposition and the coupling would be turned off. Finally, the superposition for qubit A would remain -- preserving its initial quantum state. I have been staring at this for quite a while wihtout quite getting it. Did the superposition of A get transferred to B or not?
So let me try to quote the relevant bits (hehe) from the article:
Until late last year, if you had qubit A and you needed it to be coupled to qubit B in order change the state of qubit B, you'd have to keep that link constantly active. This link -- the coupling -- is made possible by quantum entanglement. But keeping the link active is a problem because it will also change the state of qubit A -- when you only want to change the state of qubit B.
For many years, scientists have been trying to figure out how to couple qubits for very short periods of time, just long enough to conduct a two-qubit operation, and to immediately shut it off once completed.
If controlling this coupling can be achieved, then larger computer logic operations should work.
For many years, scientists have been trying to figure out how to couple qubits for very short periods of time, just long enough to conduct a two-qubit operation, and to immediately shut it off once completed.
If controlling this coupling can be achieved, then larger computer logic operations should work.
The story says that Brazil will now "get the drug from a factory in India". This means it is not just Brazil that is violating the patent, but also India. Yet all the discussion here has only been about Brazil's end of it. How about India? On what grounds does India violate the patent, and does Merck have no legal remedy in India against this?
But at least, it is a taking the scenic route.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro /4766843.html
The kid is Chinese,which gives the story a bit of a racist [er..I can't type the word].
The same security issues apply to debit cards. Whether or not credit cards are evil is not really a subject of discussion here.
Why would the sequence need to be reset? If such a remote possibility does arise, the bank can simply send a new card.
Batteries can last long enough to generate a new number every minute for a couple years, and digital clocks are good enough not to go out of sync for that long. Even if you are off by a few seconds, it is not a big deal because the server can simply check previous and next numbers in the sequence, while still not allowing the same number to be used more than once to complete a transaction. Traditional credit cards already have expiry dates in the two year range, so I don't see the problem.
That is what Britain needs, yesterday. This unwritten constitution business gives too much power to the political class, and they are obviously not above exploiting it to the max.
Reading the details in the story. even the earlier "process" had no judicial oversight and was run by the federal cops. The only difference now is that the info can be requested directly by the state cops instead of going through the center, and it is thus faster.
I doubt infrared sensors can detect REM sleep.
Example: "In the future, backpacks will carry you!"
What we need, obviously, is a Beowulf cluster of French Physicists.
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/2 1/2326240
As long as we are trying to spread random information ... the issue of mercury induced madness in hatters is a key element of the novel.
Been using the fluorescent light bulbs for a few years now, and while they use less power, the do cost more, and unlike what is promised on the package, they need replacement as often as the incandescent kind, in my experience, so probably a wash in terms of lifetime cost.
From my experience, the FORTRAN community is the most resistant among programmers to switch languages. Even F99 hasn't got much traction with them. So, best of luck with Fortress.