this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2024
481 points (100.0% liked)

196

16453 readers
1715 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
moss@lemmy.blahaj.zone
greembow@lemmy.blahaj.zone
moss@lemmy.world
queue@beehaw.org
funky_rodent@lemmy.blahaj.zone
PeachyMcPeachface@lemmy.blahaj.zone
threegnomes@lemmy.blahaj.zone
greembow@lemmy.world
remotelove@lemmy.ca
Roflmasterbigpimp@feddit.de
qaz@lemmy.world
A_Very_Big_Fan@lemm.ee
qaz@lemmy.blahaj.zone
qaz@lemmy.ca
A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world
qaz@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Qaz@lemmy.ml
qaz@sh.itjust.works
qaz@lemmy.sdf.org
481
electrical engineer rule (lemmy.world)
submitted 3 months ago by laserm@lemmy.world to c/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone
71 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] killingspark@feddit.org 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

then we'll be able to get a lot more computing power.

I think that's not quite true it depends on what you want to calculate. Some problems have more efficient algorithms for quantum computing (famously breaking RSA and other crypto algorithms). But something like a matrix multiplication probably won't benefit.

[โ€“] SmoothOperator@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

It's actually expected that matrix inversion will see a polynomial increase in speed, but with all the overhead of quantum computing, we only really get excited about exponential speedups such as in RSA decryption.