this post was submitted on 10 Feb 2026
48 points (94.4% liked)

Technology

83499 readers
3264 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
48
Replication of Quantum Factorisation Records with an 8-bit Home Computer, an Abacus, and a Dog (www.zhaw.ch)
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by dbtng@eviltoast.org to c/technology@lemmy.world
6 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The paper.
https://eprint.iacr.org/2025/1237.pdf
It's worth a read. Lotta sarcasm going on.
16 pages. Dogs. Cards. Odds. Lies. Tariffs.

all 7 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] dbtng@eviltoast.org 11 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Technocrit buried the lead when they posted this. Here it is with the actual paper highlighted.

Here's another paper describing the issues at play. This one is a bit more serious.
Craig Gidney - Why haven't quantum computers factored 21 yet?
https://algassert.com/post/2500

And apparently this field is ripe for humor. And Buzz Lightyear graphics.
The prior author did his own joke paper, which is too much for my head.
Falling with Style: Factoring up to 255 “with” a Quantum Computer
https://sigbovik.org/2025/proceedings.pdf#page=146

[–] dbtng@eviltoast.org 1 points 1 month ago

I've chewed on Gidney's 'Falling with Style' paper.
I recommend reading it if you would like to understand Shor's Algorithm.

I'm somewhat unclear if the following applies to Shor's Algorithm in general, or just the modified version used for the experiment.
But I've come to understand that the algorithm is a recursive series of steps, structured such that it will eventually factor anything.
Like ... it could take longer than the age of the universe for some numbers, but the algorithm will do the job if you got enough cycles to spare.

What we are looking for here is quantum supremacy, and once Gidney has explained this much, its obvious from the graph above that we are not seeing it. Pure random noise outperformed the quantum computer.

I guess the thing I've not absorbed yet is, why was the quantum computer expected to not work? I know it was much too complex a system, and internal noise would overwhelm any processing. Gidney described being amazed that the IBM quantum system even let him configure his experiment and run it. Why did it lose so completely to a random noise generator, as in how could you possibly get worse than random noise?

[–] ephrin@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Scribble is a good boy, 13/10.

[–] dbtng@eviltoast.org 3 points 1 month ago

Scribble understands the importance of evidence-based science. :]

[–] shneancy@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

haven't read that Narnia book yet