[14235] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: quantum hype
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jaap-Henk Hoepman)
Mon Sep 22 10:33:51 2003
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
In-Reply-To: <20030921143917.GA12852@diamond.madduck.net> (martin f.
krafft's message of "Sun, 21 Sep 2003 16:39:17 +0200")
From: Jaap-Henk Hoepman <jhh@cs.kun.nl>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 09:05:24 +0200
I always understood that QKD is based on a hard problem of which the theory of
physics says it is impossible to find a solution (if not, then i'd like to
know). Then if QKD breaks, the current theory of physics was wrong.
On the other hand, if DH or RSA breaks, factoring or the discrete log turn out
to be polynomial. This is earthshattering, but doesn't imply our theory of
computing was wrong.
Whether one is a stronger foundation than the other is really a philosophical
question (and a an interesting one too... ;-)
Jaap-Henk
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 16:39:17 +0200 martin f krafft <madduck@madduck.net> writes:
>> > Has anyone *proven* that there is no way to read
>> > a quantum bit without altering it?
>> no. its the "underlieing hard problem" for QC. If there is
>> a solution to any of the Hard Problems, nobody knows about them.
>
> right, so it's no better than the arguable hard problem of factoring
> a 2048 bit number.
--
Jaap-Henk Hoepman | I've got sunshine in my pockets
Dept. of Computer Science | Brought it back to spray the day
University of Nijmegen | Gry "Rocket"
(w) www.cs.kun.nl/~jhh | (m) jhh@cs.kun.nl
(t) +31 24 36 52710/531532 | (f) +31 24 3653137
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@metzdowd.com
