• Ace T'Ken@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    5 days ago

    The part that doesn’t make sense is how a guess on a QC in a binary is any better than a scientist just guessing an outcome from a binary. Yeah, it can do it a lot, but if you can’t test the outcome to verify if it’s correct or not, how is it better than any other way of guessing outcomes?

    Statistically, it absolutely isn’t. Even if it continually narrows things down via guesses, it’s still no more valuable than any other guesses. Because in all the whitepapers I’ve seen, it’s not calculating anything because it can’t. It’s simply assuming that one option is correct.

    In the real world, it’s not a calculation and it doesn’t assist in… anything really. It’s no better than a random number generator assigning those numbers to a result. I don’t get the utility other than potentially breaking numerical cryptography.

    • Kondeeka@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      49 minutes ago

      I’ve been bugging my colleagues with that same question the past months, the main difference between random number generators and qubits is the lack of quantum entanglement. To my surprise, I was actually able to find a passcode by just looking at the output probabilities.