Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


jimlup's Journal
jimlup's Journal
December 28, 2013

Excellent - thanks for posting...

While I have understood the basics of QC for some time I'm still trying to work out how I would read out my QC.

So here's the problem (I'm typing this so that I can organize my own thoughts actually. Read if you are interested.):

1. You wish decrypt an encryption scheme which consists of giving the product of two prime numbers. The person performing the encryption has produced the encryption by multiplying two large primes (N-bits) and then broadcasts the result as their "public key (2N bits.)" The person encrypting then encrypts the message using one of the two primes. They also communicate the other of the two primes to the end user as the "private key." Thus the end user can decrypt the encryption by simple division. My QC is designed to break this encryption and discover the two primes.

2. My QC consists of a machine which can perform the Boolean multiplication of these two primes (each N-Qbits long with quantum coherence carefully maintained throughout the operation). The multiplication results in a single number which is 2N-Qbits long. I must be very careful not to read or interfere with any of these Qbits as that we result in decoherence which would be lose of the computation.

3. In order to read out my QC I must measure the end result so that it exactly is the public key (2N-bits long.) Then the "answer" is waiting patiently for me in the input registers and all I have to do is read out the values which are now no longer Qbits but have become 1's or 0's. This is the tricky part as I don't know how to actually do this - even in theory. I have two schemes which might work. In the first I simply remeasure each bit until it is the value I want. In the other I simply define each bit to be 1 or 0 depending on what I read. It seems to me that both of these readout schemes have difficulties. In the first I don't know how long I will have to wait to get the readout I want and if I do it one Qbit at a time but does that cause decoherence upstream of the bits I've already read? In the 2nd scheme it seems that though I can define 1 or 0 anyway that I choose that leaves me unsure of how to define these at the input points. ... anyway this is where I'm stuck. Maybe scheme 1 works fine and if I read out the Qbits one by one waiting until I get the answer then once I've read all 2N-Qbits this way I'm done and have the answers sitting warmly in the input registers each N bits long. Or have I lost my coherence along the way?

April 10, 2013

I think it has already happened actually...

I don't think that the primary power rests with the "nation states" anymore so in that sense the USA is dysfunctional already. I believe the facade that is the USA will remain in place as long as it serves the "masters of mankind" which may be quite a long time - at least a century or more. But rest assured that the real power lies with the multinational bankers and the "energy" companies like EXXON and BP and the "owners of life" like Monsanto. They prefer the facade of a "functional" democracy to cover the truth of their power. And they are in fact VERY powerful. Far more than most here are aware of or willing to believe.

As the next centuries past historians will look back at the "nation-state" as a failed experiment in democracy. Perhaps they will be lucky and we will actually achieve real democracy but we will have to find a way to wrestle power from the masters who would prefer that we remain ignorant and distracted.

Look, I know it is obvious that Bush and his clowns serve these interests but realize that Obama has just proved that he does too. It isn't rocket science and yes, we've deluded ourselves into believing this is a clique fantasy but that is our psychology and not the objective reality which is rather cruel and unforgiving. Particularly if we ignore it.

Sure the Obama/centrist democrat version of the social contract is a "kinder, gentler" version but make no mistake about who that social contract serves and why.

March 10, 2013

just remember that the middle classes are not

the problem. The article doesn't make this distinction but it is quite real. I'm very middle class but I know very well what it is like to be poor.

I've traveled, I've been to a good school (though on financial aid) but I also know what it is like to be homeless and to be unemployed and perhaps most relevant to today I know what it is like to go without health insurance.

Profile Information

Name: Don't share too much over the internet
Gender: Male
Hometown: Neptune
Home country: Solar System
Current location: Triton
Member since: Sat Jan 13, 2007, 03:16 PM
Number of posts: 7,968

Journal Entries

Latest Discussions»jimlup's Journal