“JVG算法”是垃圾。
The “JVG algorithm” only wins on tiny numbers

原始链接: https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=9615

最近公开的“JVG算法”声称在分解大数方面优于Shor算法,可能仅用5000个量子比特就能破解RSA-2048加密。然而,这一说法从根本上是错误的。 JVG算法试图通过经典预计算结果,然后将其加载到量子态中来加速Shor算法中的关键步骤。作者指出这是不可能的;计算和加载指数数量的值需要指数级的*时间*,实际上是将一个棘手的问题换成了另一个棘手的问题。 该论文发表在一个不太可靠的预印本服务器(“Preprints.org”而非arXiv)上,并通过耸人听闻的新闻网站获得了关注,而主流科学媒体却对此置若罔闻。作者批评这项工作表明对基本原理的漠视,并将其作为对未经证实的主张的警示,尤其是在数学和量子计算领域。

黑客新闻 新的 | 过去的 | 评论 | 提问 | 展示 | 工作 | 提交 登录 看起来“JVG算法”只在非常小的数字上获胜 (scottaaronson.blog) 25分钟前,jhalderm 发布,6点赞 | 隐藏 | 过去的 | 收藏 | 1条评论 帮助 MathMonkeyMan 0分钟前 [–] 我阅读这篇文章时,标题发生了变化。“看起来‘JVG算法’只在非常小的数字上获胜”已经是很友善的描述了。文章是斯科特·阿伦森抨击这篇论文,并羞辱其作者为知识领域的流氓。回复 指南 | 常见问题 | 列表 | API | 安全 | 法律 | 申请YC | 联系 搜索:
相关文章

原文

Sorry to interrupt your regular programming about the AI apocalypse, etc., and return to the traditional beat of this blog’s very earliest years … but I’ve now gotten multiple messages asking me to comment on something called the “JVG (Jesse–Victor–Gharabaghi) algorithm” (yes, the authors named it after themselves). This is presented as a massive improvement over Shor’s factoring algorithm, which could (according to popular articles) allow RSA-2048 to be broken using only 5,000 physical qubits.

On inspection, the paper’s big new idea is that, in the key step of Shor’s algorithm where you compute xr mod N in a superposition over all r’s, you instead precompute the xr mod N’s on a classical computer and then load them all into the quantum state.

Alright kids, why does this not work? Shall we call on someone in the back of the class—like, any undergrad quantum computing class in the world? Yes class, that’s right! There are exponentially many r’s. Computing them all takes exponential time, and loading them into the quantum computer also takes exponential time. We’re out of the n2-time frying pan but into the 2n-time fire. This can only look like it wins on tiny numbers; on large numbers it’s hopeless.

If you want to see people explaining the same point more politely and at greater length, try this from Hacker News or this from Postquantum.com.

Even for those who know nothing about quantum algorithms, is there anything that could’ve raised suspicion here?

  1. The paper didn’t appear on the arXiv, but someplace called “Preprints.org.” Come to think of it, I should add this to my famous Ten Signs a Claimed Mathematical Breakthrough is Wrong! It’s not that there isn’t tons of crap on the arXiv as well, but so far I’ve seen pretty much only crap on preprint repositories other than arXiv, ECCC, and IACR.
  2. Judging from a Google search, the claim seems to have gotten endlessly amplified on clickbait link-farming news sites, but ignored by reputable science news outlets—yes, even the usual quantum hypesters weren’t touching this one!

Often, when something is this bad, the merciful answer is to let it die in obscurity. In this case, I feel like there was a sufficient level of intellectual hooliganism, just total lack of concern for what’s true, that those involved deserve to have this Shtetl-Optimized post as a tiny bit of egg on their faces forever.

联系我们 contact @ memedata.com