/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.1500240]

Hey, /sci/, could some physicist or mathematician take a look at this for me and tell me whether or not it'd be capable of being a quantum-computing-proof replacement for RSA?
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0908/0908.2146v3.pdf

[Anonymous No.1500253]

If it doesn't rely on the difficulty of factoring large numbers, quantum computing won't help. But that doesn't mean it's better than RSA or that there are other weaknesses to it.

[Anonymous No.1500260]

> If y'all are so smrat

we'r e not

[Anonymous No.1500270]

When we have quantum computing, we'll have quantum cryptography, which is far better than anything else.

[Anonymous No.1500272]

>>1500270
OP here, my link IS quantum cryptography.

[Anonymous No.1500277]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computer

[Anonymous No.1500285]

While we're at it, could quantum computing be useful in any way for videogames? Just a complete shot in the dark here but I'm guessing that it might be able to find square roots more quickly than traditional methods and that would be helpful for games but other than that...

[Anonymous No.1500288]

>>1500272
Oh, well, the math involved is over my head, but I do know that under perfect conditions, quantum cryptography would be theoretically uncrackable,

[Anonymous No.1500295]

>>1500288
nothing is theoretically uncrackable, most stuff is just practically uncrackable

[Anonymous No.1500312]

>>1500295
Under perfect conditions (i.e., the key is not intercepted), a quantum key is random and uncrackable. Look that shit up.

[Anonymous No.1500315]

I count something as theoretically uncrackable if, theoretically, it'd take a computer constructed out of all of the matter in the universe an amount of time greater than the lifespan of the universe (that is, until heat death) to crack.

[Anonymous No.1500316]

>>1500288
>but I do know that under perfect conditions, quantum cryptography would be theoretically uncrackable,
Herp derp, what is brute force?

[Anonymous No.1500327]

>>1500316
that's cheating.

[Anonymous No.1500331]

>>1500315

Lol, scrub. It can still be cracked.

Enjoy not having a fully secure algorithm.

[Anonymous No.1500334]

>>1500316
Please explain your brute force algorithm for a one-time pad.

[Anonymous No.1500336]

If y'all are so smart, how come you get trolled so easily?

[Anonymous No.1500341]

>>1500316
Quantum cryptography is essentially a one-time-pad cipher. Brute force is useless.

[Anonymous No.1500343]

>>1500316
Brute forcing my one-time pad? But what if I'm sending the message "Hello" and your brute-force algorithm tells you I sent "Jaggy"?

[Anonymous No.1500346]

>>1500327
>that's cheating.
No, it isn't. All encryption methods are deemed secure until a) they are compromised via a flaw in the algorithm, or b) it becomes trivially easy to brute force the encryption key.

[Anonymous No.1500400]

lead pipe decryption ftw

[Anonymous No.1500420]

>>1500400
Mandatory xkcd

[Anonymous No.1500440]

>>1500420
Traditionally, it is not a wrench, it's a rubber hose, and it is definitely not fucking XKCD.

All webcomics need to fucking die.

[Anonymous No.1500467]

>>1500440
Except Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal.

Pic related, proof that the author visits /sci/.

[Anonymous No.1500478]

>>1500467
There's another one, too.

[Anonymous No.1500500]

>>1500467
did anyone say cereal?

[Anonymous No.1500522]

>>1500500