From: jamesd@netcom.com (James A. Donald)
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 94 18:46:34 PDT
To: scmayo@rschp2.anu.edu.au (Sherry Mayo)
Subject: Re: Anyone seen the 'quantum cryptanalysis' thread on sci.crypt?
In-Reply-To: <9409280734.AA12090@toad.com>
Message-ID: <199409300131.SAA05403@netcom8.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Sherry Mayo writes
> Detractors of the proposed technique say problems of noise and sensitivity
> to mechanical defects are insurmountable and the technique could never work.
> 
> I was wondering if anyone here has any comment. After reading the New Scientist
> 
> I was wondering if anyone here had any views (informed or otherwise :-)

My ill informed back of the envelope guestimate is that current
art is a factor of one hundred from building a proof of principle
quantum computer,  a factor of one thousand from building a
quantum computer that does something interesting, and a factor
of ten thousand from building a quantum computer that does something
that is actually useful.  Art is improving at (very roughly) a
factor of two every four years.

These estimates may well be rather optimistic, but they are
not totally ridiculous.


-- 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our
property, because of the kind of animals that we              James A. Donald
are.  True law derives from this right, not from
the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.                jamesd@netcom.com