Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.computer.security > #5395 > unrolled thread

Re: How Is the NSA Breaking So Much Crypto?

Back to article view | Back to alt.computer.security

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: How Is the NSA Breaking So Much Crypto? Jeremy Bentham <nobody@anemone.mooo.com> - 2015-10-21 23:39 +0200
    Re: How Is the NSA Breaking So Much Crypto? Big Bad Bob <BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> - 2015-10-21 14:47 -0700
      Re: How Is the NSA Breaking So Much Crypto? GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-10-21 16:42 -0600
        Re: How Is the NSA Breaking So Much Crypto? meagain <rick0.merrill@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 15:31 -0400
          Re: How Is the NSA Breaking So Much Crypto? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-10-27 19:47 +0000
            Re: How Is the NSA Breaking So Much Crypto? GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-10-27 15:47 -0600
            Re: How Is the NSA Breaking So Much Crypto? Big Bad Bob <BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> - 2015-10-28 14:49 -0700
              Re: How Is the NSA Breaking So Much Crypto? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-10-28 22:23 +0000
                Re: How Is the NSA Breaking So Much Crypto? "Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixmaster@remailer.privacy.at> - 2015-10-29 19:56 +0100
          A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-10-27 12:50 -0700
            Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-10-27 21:18 +0100
              Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-10-27 20:49 +0000
                Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-10-27 22:06 +0100
                  Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-10-27 21:44 +0000
              Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist. Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-27 13:53 -0700
                Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-10-27 21:43 +0000
                  Better Randomness ? ! Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-10-27 22:41 -0700
                    Re: Better Randomness ? ! moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-28 14:33 +0000
                      Re: Better Randomness ? ! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-28 09:36 -0500
                        Re: Better Randomness ? ! benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 05:56 -0400
                      Re: Better Randomness ? ! "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-10-28 10:46 -0400
                      QueryPerformanceCounter() -- Better Randomness. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-10-28 08:28 -0700
                        Re: QueryPerformanceCounter() -- Better Randomness. "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-10-28 11:48 -0400
                          RDRAND has numerous problems. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-10-28 09:35 -0700
                        Re: QueryPerformanceCounter() -- Better Randomness. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-28 16:17 +0000
                          QueryPerformanceCounter() -- Better Randomness. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-10-28 09:50 -0700
                      Re: Better Randomness ? ! Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2015-10-29 19:38 +0100
                        Re: Better Randomness ? ! Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-10-29 19:14 +0000
                          Re: Better Randomness ? ! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-29 13:10 -0700
                    Re: Better Randomness ? ! benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 05:45 -0400
                  Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-28 07:07 -0500
                    Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-10-28 17:13 -0600
                    Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist. Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2015-10-29 00:27 +0000
                Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist. Big Bad Bob <BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> - 2015-10-28 14:59 -0700
                  Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-10-28 22:21 +0000
                  Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-10-28 17:14 -0600
                    Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist. Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-28 16:29 -0700
                      Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-10-29 15:43 -0600
                      Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist. "Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixmaster@remailer.privacy.at> - 2015-10-29 23:36 +0100
              Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist. "Rice Rocketeer" <ricerocketeer@somemail.com> - 2015-10-28 11:57 +0100
            Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-10-27 15:47 -0600
              Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist. Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-27 15:38 -0700
                Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist. Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2015-10-27 22:29 -0400
                  Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-10-27 23:02 -0600
                    Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist. Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2015-10-28 10:19 +0000
                      Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-10-28 17:20 -0600
                        Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist. Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2015-10-29 18:32 +0000
                          Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist. Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-10-29 19:19 +0000
                            Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-10-29 20:46 -0600
                              Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist. Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-10-30 09:13 +0000
                                Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-10-30 15:58 -0600
                Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-10-27 22:58 -0600
              Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-10-27 22:47 +0000
                Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-10-27 23:34 -0600
                  Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-10-28 19:08 +0000
                    Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-10-28 17:22 -0600
          Re: How Is the NSA Breaking So Much Crypto? GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-10-27 15:46 -0600

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#5422 — Re: Better Randomness ? !

"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
news:n0qmbc$8pt$1@pcls7.std.com...
> Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> writes:
>
>>Professor William_Unruh wrote:
>>> a program to efficiently find the minimum of an arbitrary function
>>> is incredibly powerful.
>>>
>>> Now the question of course is whether or not the DWave system can
>>> actually find such minima faster than a classical computer can.
>>>
>>> That is still somewhat up in the air.
>>> And whether their computer actually uses quantum mechanics
>>> in the process (rather than thermal monti-carlo say).
>
>>Better Randomness ? ! I don't think so.
>
>>Seriously, _How_ could thermo/quantum randomness be
>>better than what I've got, on my i7_4790s/Windows_8 PC ? !
>>How ? !
>
> Any computer algorithm is just pseudorandomness, "ignorance" as you put
> it.  Dig deep enough into the algorithm and you can _predict_ the next
> value, although doing so can be extremely difficult.
>
> On the other hand, something based on truly random events, such as
> radioactive decay, is, well, truly random, if implemented properly.
>

Agreed. There isn't really a software substitute for external "random" 
entropy.

-- 
"Coding in C#, or any other object oriented language, is *not* programming. 
It is only arranging predetermined classes like a child will arrange toy 
blocks."

Fabian Russell
5 Aug 2015 <pan.2015.08.05.14.06.13@localhost.localdomain>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5423 — QueryPerformanceCounter() -- Better Randomness.

Replying to me, you (Michael_Moroney) wrote:
> > Seriously, _How_ could thermo/quantum randomness be
> > better than what I've got, on my i7_4790s/Windows_8 PC ? !
> > How ? !
> 
> Any computer algorithm is just pseudorandomness, 
> "ignorance" as you put it.  
> 
> Dig deep enough into the algorithm and you can _predict_ the next
> value, although doing so can be extremely difficult.
> 
> On the other hand, something based on truly random events, such as 
> radioactive decay, is, well, truly random, if implemented properly.

Every second, a 64 bit counter on my 4 GigaHz PC,
QueryPerformanceCounter(), goes up by another 4 billion.

Use the low bits of that counter to seed srand(),
and you have a nice array of PSEUDO_random numbers;
no one could predict what's in the array.

How, pray tell, would that not be good enough ?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5424 — Re: QueryPerformanceCounter() -- Better Randomness.

"Jeff-Relf.Me" <@.> wrote in message 
news:Jeff-Relf.Me@Oct.28{8.28A.Seattle.2015}...
> Replying to me, you (Michael_Moroney) wrote:
>> > Seriously, _How_ could thermo/quantum randomness be
>> > better than what I've got, on my i7_4790s/Windows_8 PC ? !
>> > How ? !
>>
>> Any computer algorithm is just pseudorandomness,
>> "ignorance" as you put it.
>>
>> Dig deep enough into the algorithm and you can _predict_ the next
>> value, although doing so can be extremely difficult.
>>
>> On the other hand, something based on truly random events, such as
>> radioactive decay, is, well, truly random, if implemented properly.
>
> Every second, a 64 bit counter on my 4 GigaHz PC,
> QueryPerformanceCounter(), goes up by another 4 billion.
>
> Use the low bits of that counter to seed srand(),
> and you have a nice array of PSEUDO_random numbers;
> no one could predict what's in the array.
>
> How, pray tell, would that not be good enough ?

You don't even need QueryPerformanceCounter - Intel added hardware support 
to make this even better.

<quote>
RDRAND (also RDRAND; previously known as Bull Mountain) is an instruction 
for returning random numbers from an Intel on-chip hardware random number 
generator. RDRAND is available in Ivy Bridge processors[a] and is part of 
the Intel 64 and IA-32 instruction set architectures. AMD added support for 
the instruction in June 2015.

The random number generator is compliant with security and cryptographic 
standards such as NIST SP 800-90A, FIPS 140-2, and ANSI X9.82. Intel also 
requested Cryptography Research Inc. to review the random number generator 
in 1999 and 2012, which resulted in two published papers: The Intel Random 
Number Generator in 1999, and Analysis of Intel's Ivy Bridge Digital Random 
Number Generator in 2012.
</quote>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RdRand


For just about everything (banking, ssh to work, etc) this is sufficient. 
But for extremely high security applications (NSA, military, etc) they want 
something much more random than this.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5426 — RDRAND has numerous problems.

Ezekiel,  RDRAND has numerous problems;
if it worked properly, rand() would use it.

1. It doesn't work on most systems, including mine.
2. You can't guarantee that it'll work as advertized.

I don't see how passing the low bits of 
QueryPerformanceCounter() to srand() wouldn't
be good enough for anyone and everyone.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5425 — Re: QueryPerformanceCounter() -- Better Randomness.

Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> writes:

>Replying to me, you (Michael_Moroney) wrote:
>> > Seriously, _How_ could thermo/quantum randomness be
>> > better than what I've got, on my i7_4790s/Windows_8 PC ? !
>> > How ? !
>> 
>> Any computer algorithm is just pseudorandomness, 
>> "ignorance" as you put it.  
>> 
>> Dig deep enough into the algorithm and you can _predict_ the next
>> value, although doing so can be extremely difficult.
>> 
>> On the other hand, something based on truly random events, such as 
>> radioactive decay, is, well, truly random, if implemented properly.

>Every second, a 64 bit counter on my 4 GigaHz PC,
>QueryPerformanceCounter(), goes up by another 4 billion.

>Use the low bits of that counter to seed srand(),
>and you have a nice array of PSEUDO_random numbers;

As I said, only pseudorandom, not genuinely random.

>no one could predict what's in the array.

>How, pray tell, would that not be good enough ?

"Good enough" depends on what you are up to.  Are you trying to generate
statistical noise for a test, or to encrypt something just so a casual
observer can't see a file/packet of not very significant importance?
Or are you trying to keep the NSA or some foreign government from ever
seeing the contents of a file?  Because if the NSA really wants to, 
they'll figure out your pseudorandom sequence and decrypt your file
just like that.

Remember, computers are deterministic.  I was just talking about someone
about using the computer's cycle counter to test memory latency in 
different configurations.  For a given configuration, a particular test
of his sees the cycle counter increment by the same amount, as long as 
interrupts, timer etc. are all locked out.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5427 — QueryPerformanceCounter() -- Better Randomness.

Replying to me, you (Michael_Moroney) wrote:
> > Every second, a 64 bit counter on my 4 GigaHz PC,
> > QueryPerformanceCounter(), goes up by another 4 billion.
> > 
> > Use the low bits of that counter to seed srand(),
> > and you have a nice array of PSEUDO_random numbers;
> > no one could predict what's in the array.
> 
> if the NSA really wants to, they'll figure out your 
> pseudorandom sequence and decrypt your file just like that.

Proof ?  are you just making it up, on the fly ?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5441 — Re: Better Randomness ? !

In article <n0qmbc$8pt$1@pcls7.std.com>
moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:
>
> Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> writes:
>
> >Professor William_Unruh wrote:
> >> a program to efficiently find the minimum of an arbitrary function
> >> is incredibly powerful.
> >>
> >> Now the question of course is whether or not the DWave system can
> >> actually find such minima faster than a classical computer can.
> >>
> >> That is still somewhat up in the air.
> >> And whether their computer actually uses quantum mechanics
> >> in the process (rather than thermal monti-carlo say).
>
> >Better Randomness ? ! I don't think so.
>
> >Seriously, _How_ could thermo/quantum randomness be
> >better than what I've got, on my i7_4790s/Windows_8 PC ? !
> >How ? !
>
> Any computer algorithm is just pseudorandomness, "ignorance" as you put
> it.  Dig deep enough into the algorithm and you can _predict_ the next
> value, although doing so can be extremely difficult.

Seymour Cray and DEC Alpha designers managed it, AMD too.  
Intel, well not so much.

> On the other hand, something based on truly random events, such as
> radioactive decay, is, well, truly random, if implemented properly.

There is nothing random about radioactive decay.

> <snip crap>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5443 — Re: Better Randomness ? !

In article <edf94e286ab256dce6ced654ddf07a22@dizum.com>, Nomen Nescio
<nobody@dizum.com> wrote:

>In article <n0qmbc$8pt$1@pcls7.std.com>
>moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:

>> On the other hand, something based on truly random events, such as
>> radioactive decay, is, well, truly random, if implemented properly.
>
>There is nothing random about radioactive decay.

In terms of when an individual atom might decay there is. That is
completely random. All you know is that the probability that it will
decay in the next time-period of length equal to its half-life is just
0.5.

-- 
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in 
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in 
someone else's pocket.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5445 — Re: Better Randomness ? !

On 10/29/15, 12:14 PM, in article
291020151914153294%timstreater@greenbee.net, "Tim Streater"
<timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:

> In article <edf94e286ab256dce6ced654ddf07a22@dizum.com>, Nomen Nescio
> <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
> 
>> In article <n0qmbc$8pt$1@pcls7.std.com>
>> moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:
> 
>>> On the other hand, something based on truly random events, such as
>>> radioactive decay, is, well, truly random, if implemented properly.
>> 
>> There is nothing random about radioactive decay.
> 
> In terms of when an individual atom might decay there is. That is
> completely random.

Well, at least as far as we know. :)

> All you know is that the probability that it will
> decay in the next time-period of length equal to its half-life is just
> 0.5.



-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5450 — Re: Better Randomness ? !

On 10/28/2015 01:41 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> Professor William_Unruh wrote:
>> a program to efficiently find the minimum of an arbitrary function
>> is incredibly powerful.
>>
>> Now the question of course is whether or not the DWave system can
>> actually find such minima faster than a classical computer can.
>>
>> That is still somewhat up in the air.
>> And whether their computer actually uses quantum mechanics
>> in the process (rather than thermal monti-carlo say).
>
> Better Randomness ? ! I don't think so.
>
> Seriously, _How_ could thermo/quantum randomness be
> better than what I've got, on my i7_4790s/Windows_8 PC ? !
> How ? !
>
> I used genetic algorithms back in 1992;
> it's no big deal, nothing new.
>
> "Randomness" is just ignorance, nothing more.
> Intrinsically, the (4D) timescape is static, immutable.
> "Life" is virtual, not real.
>
> We're robots, programmed to want food, water, air, etc.
>
> Like the sun, stars and everything else...
> we consume "exergy" (energy that can do work);
> i.e. we ratchet entropy.

There you go folks!

"Randomness" is just ignorance!

That means that to Rolf all life is random!



-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5419 — Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist.

William Unruh wrote:

>Ie, a program to efficiently find the minimum of an arbitrary function
>is incredibly powerful.

cola was invented to efficiency find the minimum human mental capacity
that could still manage to type.

Take the Ezekreep, as an example.  He thinks that proper perspective
of the "Linux choice problem" is that there are "3 new distros per
day", not that the *top* distros have barely changed in years.

Now *that* is some fscktarded thinking!

-- 
"Try reading it in the context of '3 new distros per day' and view it
that way."  -  trolling fsckwit "Ezekiel"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5433 — Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist.

On 10/28/15 06:07, chrisv wrote:
> William Unruh wrote:
>
>> Ie, a program to efficiently find the minimum of an arbitrary function
>> is incredibly powerful.
>
> cola was invented to efficiency find the minimum human mental capacity
> that could still manage to type.
>
> Take the Ezekreep, as an example.  He thinks that proper perspective
> of the "Linux choice problem" is that there are "3 new distros per
> day", not that the *top* distros have barely changed in years.
>
> Now *that* is some fscktarded thinking!
>
You fit the bill quite nicely for minimum mental capacity.

-- 
When told the reason for daylight savings time the Old
Indian said, "Only the government would believe that you
could cut a foot off the top of a blanket, sew it to the
bottom, and have a longer blanket."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5438 — Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist.

In article <m5e13b1urn4innici7c90n1eihb5u81khq@4ax.com>
chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> William Unruh wrote:
>
> >Ie, a program to efficiently find the minimum of an arbitrary function
> >is incredibly powerful.
>
> cola was invented to efficiency find the minimum human mental capacity
> that could still manage to type.
>
> Take the Ezekreep, as an example.  He thinks that proper perspective
> of the "Linux choice problem" is that there are "3 new distros per
> day", not that the *top* distros have barely changed in years.
>
> Now *that* is some fscktarded thinking!

Nope, he's exactly right.  And people complain about Windows 
update...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5430 — Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist.

On 10/27/15 13:53, Siri Cruz so wittily quipped:
> In article <n0om2e$ok6$1@dont-email.me>,
>  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> 
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> GreyCloud and Rick_Merrill wrote:
>>>>> Right now, the NSA in Utah is using a new quantum computer to do the
>>>>> job.  If you hear about talk or reports about experimenting with
>>>>> quantum computers, then it has already been done.
>>>>
>>>> And how many Qbits does it have??
>>>
>>> Without looking, I know that
>>> a real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist.
>>
>> And as usual, you are wrong
> 
> The only commercial quantum computer runs only one program that finds the global 
> minimum of a function.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-Wave_Systems
> 

interesting article.  yeah, highly specialized

there are actually different definitions of what 'quantum computing' is.
 one might be having such a massive computer system that you can
[essentially] look up the answer to anything, in a single instruction
cycle.  that would be [for the most part] simulated quantum computing,
but essentially fitting the definition.

Another [more expected] would be the use of quantum entanglements in the
various gates and whatnot.

After reading a bit, it seems there's another definition regarding
'quantum algorithms' and 'quantum gates'.  That seemed interesting
enough in that quantum gates are supposed to be 'reversible' like
standard math ops, as opposed to 'irreversible' like matrix math and
whatnot.

in any case it would seem [to me] that outside of probability
determination, and the "just look it up for the answer" definition,
quantum computing would have limited use.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5431 — Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist.

On 2015-10-28, Big Bad Bob <BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> wrote:
> On 10/27/15 13:53, Siri Cruz so wittily quipped:
>> In article <n0om2e$ok6$1@dont-email.me>,
>>  Peter K?hlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>> 
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> GreyCloud and Rick_Merrill wrote:
>>>>>> Right now, the NSA in Utah is using a new quantum computer to do the
>>>>>> job.  If you hear about talk or reports about experimenting with
>>>>>> quantum computers, then it has already been done.
>>>>>
>>>>> And how many Qbits does it have??
>>>>
>>>> Without looking, I know that
>>>> a real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist.
>>>
>>> And as usual, you are wrong
>> 
>> The only commercial quantum computer runs only one program that finds the global 
>> minimum of a function.
>> 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-Wave_Systems
>> 
>
> interesting article.  yeah, highly specialized
>
> there are actually different definitions of what 'quantum computing' is.
>  one might be having such a massive computer system that you can
> [essentially] look up the answer to anything, in a single instruction
> cycle.  that would be [for the most part] simulated quantum computing,
> but essentially fitting the definition.
>
> Another [more expected] would be the use of quantum entanglements in the
> various gates and whatnot.
>
> After reading a bit, it seems there's another definition regarding
> 'quantum algorithms' and 'quantum gates'.  That seemed interesting
> enough in that quantum gates are supposed to be 'reversible' like
> standard math ops, as opposed to 'irreversible' like matrix math and
> whatnot.
Matricees are not irreversible in general. 

In order for quantum computers to make use of quantum mechanics they
must be reversible (ie the algorithm can be run backwards. For example
an and gate is not reversible. 0+0=0, 0+1=0 1+0=0 1+1=1. If I only have
one imput and the output I cannot figure out in all cases what the other
input was. Ie, it is not reversible. 


>
> in any case it would seem [to me] that outside of probability
> determination, and the "just look it up for the answer" definition,
> quantum computing would have limited use.

Quantum computing took off when it was shown that a quantum computer,
using entangelement, could factor far faster than any classical
computer.  polynomial with low exponent, vs subexponential. It should
also be able to solve "sat" problems faster. 
Quantum algorithms are algorithms to use quantum techniques for solving
problems faster than classical algorithms. Quantum gates are the
equivalent of classical gates (xor, and, not,...) but such that they
entangle qubits as part of the working of the gate. 

It is NOT "just look it up"


>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5434 — Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist.

On 10/28/15 15:59, Big Bad Bob wrote:
> On 10/27/15 13:53, Siri Cruz so wittily quipped:
>> In article<n0om2e$ok6$1@dont-email.me>,
>>   Peter Köhlmann<peter-koehlmann@t-online.de>  wrote:
>>
>>>   wrote:
>>>
>>>> GreyCloud and Rick_Merrill wrote:
>>>>>> Right now, the NSA in Utah is using a new quantum computer to do the
>>>>>> job.  If you hear about talk or reports about experimenting with
>>>>>> quantum computers, then it has already been done.
>>>>>
>>>>> And how many Qbits does it have??
>>>>
>>>> Without looking, I know that
>>>> a real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist.
>>>
>>> And as usual, you are wrong
>>
>> The only commercial quantum computer runs only one program that finds the global
>> minimum of a function.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-Wave_Systems
>>
>
> interesting article.  yeah, highly specialized
>
> there are actually different definitions of what 'quantum computing' is.
>   one might be having such a massive computer system that you can
> [essentially] look up the answer to anything, in a single instruction
> cycle.  that would be [for the most part] simulated quantum computing,
> but essentially fitting the definition.
>
> Another [more expected] would be the use of quantum entanglements in the
> various gates and whatnot.
>
> After reading a bit, it seems there's another definition regarding
> 'quantum algorithms' and 'quantum gates'.  That seemed interesting
> enough in that quantum gates are supposed to be 'reversible' like
> standard math ops, as opposed to 'irreversible' like matrix math and
> whatnot.
>
> in any case it would seem [to me] that outside of probability
> determination, and the "just look it up for the answer" definition,
> quantum computing would have limited use.
>
>
I don't think the public is going to be the recipients of such 
technology this century tho.


-- 
When told the reason for daylight savings time the Old
Indian said, "Only the government would believe that you
could cut a foot off the top of a blanket, sew it to the
bottom, and have a longer blanket."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5437 — Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist.

In article <4vOdnUDaGulSy6zLnZ2dnUU7-LWdnZ2d@bresnan.com>,
 GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> wrote:

> > in any case it would seem [to me] that outside of probability
> > determination, and the "just look it up for the answer" definition,
> > quantum computing would have limited use.
> >
> >
> I don't think the public is going to be the recipients of such 
> technology this century tho.

The government supported the early computer development in order to print out 
artillery tables. Then businesses got a hold of them, and businesses became a 
better sponsor. Stock traders would pay dearly for technology that would shave 
deciseconds off trades. Google would pay to reduce their server load/increase 
response time. With the pace of technology if it can be done, it will be done in 
the next 90 years, and they people who market will make a fortune selling to 
everyone who is taught to want it.

-- 
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
When is a Kenyan not a Kenyan? When he's a Canadian.
That's People's Commissioner Siri Cruz now. Punch!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5446 — Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist.

On 10/28/15 17:29, Siri Cruz wrote:
> In article<4vOdnUDaGulSy6zLnZ2dnUU7-LWdnZ2d@bresnan.com>,
>   GreyCloud<cumulus@mist.com>  wrote:
>
>>> in any case it would seem [to me] that outside of probability
>>> determination, and the "just look it up for the answer" definition,
>>> quantum computing would have limited use.
>>>
>>>
>> I don't think the public is going to be the recipients of such
>> technology this century tho.
>
> The government supported the early computer development in order to print out
> artillery tables. Then businesses got a hold of them, and businesses became a
> better sponsor. Stock traders would pay dearly for technology that would shave
> deciseconds off trades. Google would pay to reduce their server load/increase
> response time. With the pace of technology if it can be done, it will be done in
> the next 90 years, and they people who market will make a fortune selling to
> everyone who is taught to want it.
>
Yes, I know.  That was the purpose of the NSA technology release program 
to corporations that would develop it.  Keeps the economy going.
They'll have to reduce the price for the public tho for quantum computers.


-- 
When told the reason for daylight savings time the Old
Indian said, "Only the government would believe that you
could cut a foot off the top of a blanket, sew it to the
bottom, and have a longer blanket."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5447 — Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist.

In article <chine.bleu-5DD1B1.16290528102015@88-209-239-
213.giganet.hu>
Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> In article <4vOdnUDaGulSy6zLnZ2dnUU7-LWdnZ2d@bresnan.com>,
>  GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> wrote:
>
> > > in any case it would seem [to me] that outside of probability
> > > determination, and the "just look it up for the answer" definition,
> > > quantum computing would have limited use.
> > >
> > >
> > I don't think the public is going to be the recipients of such
> > technology this century tho.
>
> The government supported the early computer development in order to print out
> artillery tables. Then businesses got a hold of them, and businesses became a
> better sponsor. Stock traders would pay dearly for technology that would shave
> deciseconds off trades. Google would pay to reduce their server load/increase
> response time. With the pace of technology if it can be done, it will be done in
> the next 90 years, and they people who market will make a fortune selling to
> everyone who is taught to want it.

facebook.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5418 — Re: A real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist.

In article <n0om2e$ok6$1@dont-email.me>
Peter =?UTF-8?B?S8O2aGxtYW5u?= <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> 
wrote:
>
>  wrote:
>
> > GreyCloud and Rick_Merrill wrote:
> >> > Right now, the NSA in Utah is using a new quantum computer to do the
> >> > job.  If you hear about talk or reports about experimenting with
> >> > quantum computers, then it has already been done.
> >>
> >> And how many Qbits does it have??
> >
> > Without looking, I know that
> > a real quantum computer, doing real work, doesn't exist.
>
> And as usual, you are wrong

Not exactly.  He's more right than wrong, and he's got some 
great reefer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.computer.security

csiph-web