Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer?

On 19/09/2024 18:23, MitchAlsup1 wrote:

On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 14:15:09 +0000, David Brown wrote:
 

On 19/09/2024 12:59, Terje Mathisen wrote:
>
According to someone on the internet (that ever-reliable source of
information), an n-bit integer takes 2n + 2 fully entangled qubits and
448.n³.log(n) gates.  For 1024-bit RSA, that's 2050 logical qubits and
about 5×10e12 gates.    For the common default size of 2048-bit RSA,
it's 4098 logical qubits and 4.2×10e13 gates.
>
Then you need the quantum error correction in addition.  I am not at all
convinced that I understand the details here or if I am applying them
correctly, but I think that for larger systems you need perhaps 1000
physical qubits per logical qubit.

 I am convinced that quantum computers will eventually be good at
some things that regular computers are not and cannot be.
 

OK.
They are already good at a few tasks, but they are not particularly useful ones.

I am not convinced that any current application is one of those.
 

Agreed, at least as far as we have seen so far with quantum computing.

And for the things that quantum computers may be great at
{Deciphering without keys} they may do more harm than good.

I also don't think breaking encryption would be a useful thing.  There may be other good uses of integer factorisation, however.
Still, I don't believe quantum computers will ever actually be any good for this, unless someone comes up with a far better algorithm.  I think it will always be easier and cheaper to break encryptions using social engineering, tricks, malware, bribery, blackmail, or - if all else fails - rubber hose cryptoanalysis.