Someone could code up a "coin wallet" right now that could be easily be cracked with a quantum computer doing quantum computation.
It’d be a super weak key (maybe 22-bit RSA or ECC or something), but it would be a demonstration of real quantum computation cracking a real ‘wallet-style’ key using real quantum effects, and provable.
Any classical computer could crack that key too, of course, though not by making use of entanglement.
If time is quantized and discrete they could not perform any QC. You still haven’t shown me your answer to the question. I’m not sure you can so please use an AI and paste it here to show you are being honest and engaging with my question. You refuse to address it.
“what happens to the formalism of QM/QC IF time is quantized and discrete? How it can take the derivative of time if there is an invisible tick? What becomes of superposition and decoherence if time has an indivisible tick? What becomes of QC if this is all true?”
What happens if you turn a cello inside out?
Your questions don't mean anything. Think in terms of actual experiments. That's how science works. Experiments.
And guess what, these experiments have all been done, you can review the results for yourself. These are answered questions, you're just ignoring the answers.
You are blatantly ignoring the question lol. Stop being dishonest, please.
Ok, so please show me the experiment that empirically proves that time is infinitely divisible.
Wrong question.
Question is "is quantum advantage real?"
So you can’t show me the experiment that proves time is infinitely divisible?
I just want you to admit you are being dishonest. You can’t point to the experiment that everything you claim MUST REQUIRE but you’re a man of experiments.
So you are trusting an unproven axiom, and my only point is, if that axiom is wrong, that time is quantized and discrete rather than infinitely divisible, every “advantage” you want to claim collapses as does the mathematics supporting said theories.
Yet you are unwilling to engage or admit this, stop being dishonest, please address the question.
No you're just being bokners.
It’s like we’re discussing whether Pepsi causes burps.
I’m saying: “Lots of people have been witnessed drinking Pepsi and then burping, we can even test it ourselves.”
You’re saying: “The letter P cannot be proven to exist and that is the first letter in the word Pepsi ergo there is no such thing as Pepsi and so it’s impossible to burp from it.”
I’m simply asking you to provide me empirical evidence that supports the claim assumption that time is infinitely divisible, and you won’t. So therefore you are assuming that it’s true.
But, if time is quantized and discrete, everything you claim falls apart.
The assumption of time is beneath any physics or experiments.
You refuse to engage in providing evidence, you refuse to admit you are assuming something to be true that has NEVER been proven, and you won’t even discuss the outcome if that assumption was wrong.
I guess it’s hard to be honest when you ask someone the right questions.
Look, your position isn that quantum computing doesn’t exist.
Yet in the real world we have quantum computers doing quantum computing.
How are we supposed to have a discussion in light of that contradiction?
Either we resolve that or there's nothing to say.
Send this grump your 170-qubit absolute speed limit of the quantum universe breakthrough research paper!
He might invite you to New Zealand for some mutton and mint sauce.
Every field has grumps (this grump is actually genuinely funny, a well-liked grump you might say).
Look at AI, there’s some clip of the grump Lecun listing off a bunch of things a 2 year old can do but that LLMs will *never ever ever* be able to do because of the fundamental limits of what an LLM actually is.
Spoiler alert, LLMs can now do every singe one of these things and Lecun has now been pushed out of Meta due to Mark Zuckerberg feeling kinda embarrassed about it all.
