Quantum Supremacy achieved by Sycamore Googles Quantum Computer

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Nope, as I already know that everything it posts is BS,

OK, OK ... I won't give you any BS. I just want to learn how I can teach my children to discern the entangled photons from the non-entangled photons. I'm turning to you to explain the basics to me.

The children of downs syndrome patients like you ...

I presume that Down syndrome patients would identify the entangled photons in the same way as everyone else.

What identifies an entangled photon vs. a non-entangled photon?

See link, and no downs syndrome people like you and your mother do not see the world as do other people.

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/295013-scientists-capture-photographic-proof-of-quantum-entanglement

.

Swan wrote:See link, and no downs syndrome people like you and your mother do not see the world as do other people.

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/295013-scientists-capture-photographic-proof-of-quantum-entanglement

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:See link, and no downs syndrome people like you and your mother do not see the world as do other people.

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/295013-scientists-capture-photographic-proof-of-quantum-entanglement

So this is all that is needed to get you to bend over furniture and drop your pants?

Wow! You're just looking for someone to OBEY, aren't you? Weren't you mocking Spongy Iris for this exact same thing (just over a different image)? If Spongy Iris had used this image instead, would you have gone along with his glass-enclosed earth theory?

Swan wrote:Actually quantum cryptography is guaranteed

Point of Trivia: French mathematician Pierre de Fermat (17 August 1601 - 12 January 1665) claimed to have proved an amazing theorem. For integers A, B and C: A^n + B^n cannot equal C^n. You are familiar with the Pythagorean theorem whereby A^2 + B^2 = C^2 ... but Fermat stated that if you change the exponent to 3 or to 4 or to any other integer greater than 2, there cannot be any solution. In English, a cube cannot be the sum of two cubes, a fourth-power number cannot be the sum of two fourth power numbers, etc...

The only thing missing ... was the amazing proof that he claimed to have had. Centuries passed and nobody could verify Fermat's proof one way or the other. The best mathematicians tried and the theorem remained unproven. I believe every university had a standing offer of a PhD for anyone wishing to make that proof his thesis. With the advent of computers, all the exponents were checked up well into the tens of millions for all possible combinations well into the tens of millions ... and no solution was discovered to prove the theorem false. Yet no one could prove the theorem true either.

Finally, in 1995, using a newly developed branch of mathematics, i.e. elliptic curves, the theorem was proved. Of course, Fermat did not have the benefit of Elliptic Curve mathematics. No one knows what he was thinking back in the 1600s ...

... except for me. Fermat *knew* that greenhouse gases cause the earth's temperature to spontaneously increase, and he used biogeochemistricycles along with basic common sense to show what is patently obvious, i.e. Global Warming and A^n + B^n cannot equal C^n ... Duh!

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Actually quantum cryptography is guaranteed

The fictional fantasy in your mind is not only not guaranteed, nobody will be doing it "first." It's not a thing. You shouldn't be so gullible ... but, of course, you can if you wish.

Modern cryptography is based on mathematics, specifically group theory. Previously, cryptography was mostly based on the difficulty of factoring products of HUGE prime numbers. While this is still used, elliptic curve cryptography is far more secure. It's not unbreakable but it gets very close with even relatively small keys.

The point is that cryptography is not based on the physical size of any bits. That is totally irrelevant.

Point of Trivia: French mathematician Pierre de Fermat (17 August 1601 - 12 January 1665) claimed to have proved an amazing theorem. For integers A, B and C: A^n + B^n cannot equal C^n. You are familiar with the Pythagorean theorem whereby A^2 + B^2 = C^2 ... but Fermat stated that if you change the exponent to 3 or to 4 or to any other integer greater than 2, there cannot be any solution. In English, a cube cannot be the sum of two cubes, a fourth-power number cannot be the sum of two fourth power numbers, etc...

The only thing missing ... was the amazing proof that he claimed to have had. Centuries passed and nobody could verify Fermat's proof one way or the other. The best mathematicians tried and the theorem remained unproven. I believe every university had a standing offer of a PhD for anyone wishing to make that proof his thesis. With the advent of computers, all the exponents were checked up well into the tens of millions for all possible combinations well into the tens of millions ... and no solution was discovered to prove the theorem false. Yet no one could prove the theorem true either.

Finally, in 1995, using a newly developed branch of mathematics, i.e. elliptic curves, the theorem was proved. Of course, Fermat did not have the benefit of Elliptic Curve mathematics. No one knows what he was thinking back in the 1600s ...

... except for me. Fermat *knew* that greenhouse gases cause the earth's temperature to spontaneously increase, and he used biogeochemistricycles along with basic common sense to show what is patently obvious, i.e. Global Warming and A^n + B^n cannot equal C^n ... Duh!

.

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:[quote]Point of Trivia: French mathematician Pierre de Fermat (17 August 1601 - 12 January 1665) claimed to have proved an amazing theorem. For integers A, B and C: A^n + B^n cannot equal C^n. You are familiar with the Pythagorean theorem whereby A^2 + B^2 = C^2 ... but Fermat stated that if you change the exponent to 3 or to 4 or to any other integer greater than 2, there cannot be any solution. In English, a cube cannot be the sum of two cubes, a fourth-power number cannot be the sum of two fourth power numbers, etc...

The only thing missing ... was the amazing proof that he claimed to have had. Centuries passed and nobody could verify Fermat's proof one way or the other. The best mathematicians tried and the theorem remained unproven. I believe every university had a standing offer of a PhD for anyone wishing to make that proof his thesis. With the advent of computers, all the exponents were checked up well into the tens of millions for all possible combinations well into the tens of millions ... and no solution was discovered to prove the theorem false. Yet no one could prove the theorem true either.

Finally, in 1995, using a newly developed branch of mathematics, i.e. elliptic curves, the theorem was proved. Of course, Fermat did not have the benefit of Elliptic Curve mathematics. No one knows what he was thinking back in the 1600s ...

Says the hillbilly who claims that France had mathematicians. Next you'll be saying that magnets don't contain fusion reactors! ... or that the holocaust had survivors, and that the ark's window was only one cubit square!

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Nope, as I already know that everything it posts is BS,

OK, OK ... I won't give you any BS. I just want to learn how I can teach my children to discern the entangled photons from the non-entangled photons. I'm turning to you to explain the basics to me.

The children of downs syndrome patients like you ...

I presume that Down syndrome patients would identify the entangled photons in the same way as everyone else.

What identifies an entangled photon vs. a non-entangled photon?

See link, and no downs syndrome people like you and your mother do not see the world as do other people.

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/295013-scientists-capture-photographic-proof-of-quantum-entanglement

.

See link, and no downs syndrome people like you and your mother do not see the world as do other people.

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/295013-scientists-capture-photographic-proof-of-quantum-entanglement

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:See link, and no downs syndrome people like you and your mother do not see the world as do other people.

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/295013-scientists-capture-photographic-proof-of-quantum-entanglement

So this is all that is needed to get you to bend over furniture and drop your pants?

Wow! You're just looking for someone to OBEY, aren't you? Weren't you mocking Spongy Iris for this exact same thing (just over a different image)? If Spongy Iris had used this image instead, would you have gone along with his glass-enclosed earth theory?

Actually quantum cryptography is guaranteed because either we do it first or they do it first and losing this race is just not an option. Not that you can comprehend

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Actually quantum cryptography is guaranteed

The fictional fantasy in your mind is not only not guaranteed, nobody will be doing it "first." It's not a thing. You shouldn't be so gullible ... but, of course, you can if you wish.

Modern cryptography is based on mathematics, specifically group theory. Previously, cryptography was mostly based on the difficulty of factoring products of HUGE prime numbers. While this is still used, elliptic curve cryptography is far more secure. It's not unbreakable but it gets very close with even relatively small keys.

The point is that cryptography is not based on the physical size of any bits. That is totally irrelevant.

Point of Trivia: French mathematician Pierre de Fermat (17 August 1601 - 12 January 1665) claimed to have proved an amazing theorem. For integers A, B and C: A^n + B^n cannot equal C^n. You are familiar with the Pythagorean theorem whereby A^2 + B^2 = C^2 ... but Fermat stated that if you change the exponent to 3 or to 4 or to any other integer greater than 2, there cannot be any solution. In English, a cube cannot be the sum of two cubes, a fourth-power number cannot be the sum of two fourth power numbers, etc...

The only thing missing ... was the amazing proof that he claimed to have had. Centuries passed and nobody could verify Fermat's proof one way or the other. The best mathematicians tried and the theorem remained unproven. I believe every university had a standing offer of a PhD for anyone wishing to make that proof his thesis. With the advent of computers, all the exponents were checked up well into the tens of millions for all possible combinations well into the tens of millions ... and no solution was discovered to prove the theorem false. Yet no one could prove the theorem true either.

Finally, in 1995, using a newly developed branch of mathematics, i.e. elliptic curves, the theorem was proved. Of course, Fermat did not have the benefit of Elliptic Curve mathematics. No one knows what he was thinking back in the 1600s ...

... except for me. Fermat *knew* that greenhouse gases cause the earth's temperature to spontaneously increase, and he used biogeochemistricycles along with basic common sense to show what is patently obvious, i.e. Global Warming and A^n + B^n cannot equal C^n ... Duh!

.

Says the hillbilly who claims that there was no ice age,

Swan wrote:
that there are no magnets in tokomaks,

Swan wrote:
that the holocaust never happened,

Swan wrote:
and now it claims that there is no such thing as a qubit

Swan wrote:
in a quantum computer.

Swan wrote:
It must be fun playing with Lego blocks and silly putty all day.

Swan wrote:
LOL did you always want to be a communist working for dimocraps?

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:See link, and no downs syndrome people like you and your mother do not see the world as do other people.

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/295013-scientists-capture-photographic-proof-of-quantum-entanglement

So this is all that is needed to get you to bend over furniture and drop your pants?

Wow! You're just looking for someone to OBEY, aren't you? Weren't you mocking Spongy Iris for this exact same thing (just over a different image)? If Spongy Iris had used this image instead, would you have gone along with his glass-enclosed earth theory?

Actually quantum cryptography is guaranteed because either we do it first or they do it first and losing this race is just not an option. Not that you can comprehend

HarveyH55 wrote:Doesn't matter what cryptography scheme is used, or how powerful the computer. They will all fail, for the same reason, humans. Some human will always poses the key, or access. Humans are always going to be the weak link, cryptography is a tool used by humans.

HarveyH55 wrote:
It really won't matter, since humans are always the weak link. The humans will always need the means to get their data. The key forgotten, lost, or destroyed, will still need to be recovered, access restored. There will always be some means to recover access, and locked data. There will always be human gatekeepers.

Security also needs fast, and convenient authentication. Most people expect near instant gratification, with the least hassle. What good is a bank card, if it's a major hassle to use? Most of the data breaches don't seem to be brute-force, attacks from outside. They are inside jobs, deliberate, unknown agents, or just left the door open. It's a phishing email, or unauthorized device (cell phone) that opens the door in many cases.

We have dozens of passwords to remember, several that expire every few months. Most people need to write them down, store them on a device, which is typically less secure. Humans use the tools available, but are seriously lazy, and will make anything simpler, more convenient for themselves.

Into the Night wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
It really won't matter, since humans are always the weak link. The humans will always need the means to get their data. The key forgotten, lost, or destroyed, will still need to be recovered, access restored. There will always be some means to recover access, and locked data. There will always be human gatekeepers.

Security also needs fast, and convenient authentication. Most people expect near instant gratification, with the least hassle. What good is a bank card, if it's a major hassle to use? Most of the data breaches don't seem to be brute-force, attacks from outside. They are inside jobs, deliberate, unknown agents, or just left the door open. It's a phishing email, or unauthorized device (cell phone) that opens the door in many cases.

We have dozens of passwords to remember, several that expire every few months. Most people need to write them down, store them on a device, which is typically less secure. Humans use the tools available, but are seriously lazy, and will make anything simpler, more convenient for themselves.

I think both you and IBdaMann are confusing passwords with cryptography. At this point, Harvey, you are more correct. IBdaMann brings up great points about cryptography, but passwords and cryptography are different. Passwords are authentications, and NOT the private key. Case in point: Signing into this site requires a password that a human remembers, and that another human (like an administrator) can reset, if necessary. This has nothing to do with any key generated in SSL.

Into the Night wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
It really won't matter, since humans are always the weak link. The humans will always need the means to get their data. The key forgotten, lost, or destroyed, will still need to be recovered, access restored. There will always be some means to recover access, and locked data. There will always be human gatekeepers.

Security also needs fast, and convenient authentication. Most people expect near instant gratification, with the least hassle. What good is a bank card, if it's a major hassle to use? Most of the data breaches don't seem to be brute-force, attacks from outside. They are inside jobs, deliberate, unknown agents, or just left the door open. It's a phishing email, or unauthorized device (cell phone) that opens the door in many cases.

We have dozens of passwords to remember, several that expire every few months. Most people need to write them down, store them on a device, which is typically less secure. Humans use the tools available, but are seriously lazy, and will make anything simpler, more convenient for themselves.

I think both you and IBdaMann are confusing passwords with cryptography. At this point, Harvey, you are more correct. IBdaMann brings up great points about cryptography, but passwords and cryptography are different. Passwords are authentications, and NOT the private key. Case in point: Signing into this site requires a password that a human remembers, and that another human (like an administrator) can reset, if necessary. This has nothing to do with any key generated in SSL.

HarveyH55 wrote:It's still a tool,

HarveyH55 wrote:and would be useless, if there is no possible way to recover the data should a failure occurs.

HarveyH55 wrote: Humans decide what needs to be encrypted.

HarveyH55 wrote:Humans are present when the data is presented. Other humans will still need to access data, for it to be useful. Even if they can't insert a thumbdrive, and copy the selected data, there is still a display, and cameras can be very small...

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
It really won't matter, since humans are always the weak link. The humans will always need the means to get their data. The key forgotten, lost, or destroyed, will still need to be recovered, access restored. There will always be some means to recover access, and locked data. There will always be human gatekeepers.

Security also needs fast, and convenient authentication. Most people expect near instant gratification, with the least hassle. What good is a bank card, if it's a major hassle to use? Most of the data breaches don't seem to be brute-force, attacks from outside. They are inside jobs, deliberate, unknown agents, or just left the door open. It's a phishing email, or unauthorized device (cell phone) that opens the door in many cases.

We have dozens of passwords to remember, several that expire every few months. Most people need to write them down, store them on a device, which is typically less secure. Humans use the tools available, but are seriously lazy, and will make anything simpler, more convenient for themselves.

I think both you and IBdaMann are confusing passwords with cryptography. At this point, Harvey, you are more correct. IBdaMann brings up great points about cryptography, but passwords and cryptography are different. Passwords are authentications, and NOT the private key. Case in point: Signing into this site requires a password that a human remembers, and that another human (like an administrator) can reset, if necessary. This has nothing to do with any key generated in SSL.

I wasn't confusing anything.

IBdaMann wrote:
Harvey had raised a good point about humans being the weak link in the security chain.

IBdaMann wrote:
I was giving him good news that new paradigms are being developed to ameliorate that weak link by removing, and in some cases, prohibiting, human involvement.

IBdaMann wrote:
Passwords never enter the discussion. Passwords are effectively eliminated in favor of security best practices.

IBdaMann wrote:
The elliptic curve asymmetric cryptography addresses the CIA (Confidentiality-Integrity-Availability) triad and makes it virtually impossible for it to be broken by human actors.

IBdaMann wrote:
The Zero Trust (ZT) Framework implementing Least Privilege (typically through ABAC or RBAC) addresses the authorizations of any process ID throughout the system/network, preventing even humans who are authorized on the system/network from being able to perform undesirable actions, and that includes actions performed through other system/network machines/components that have their own authorizations.

IBdaMann wrote:
ZT prevents hackers from gaining control of a trusted system component and then using that component's authorizations to perform actions.

IBdaMann wrote:
One principle of ZT is granular network segmentation that limits the authorizations of any components to the authorizations of the calling process ID.

IBdaMann wrote:
If a person whose account has limited authorizations nonetheless gains control over a component with increased authorizations, the component's authorizations will be reduced;

IBdaMann wrote:
the calling process ID will not inherit additional authorizations.

IBdaMann wrote:
Implicit in this paradigm is the elimination of anyone "gaining root access."

IBdaMann wrote:
Someone can still try, but success will only result in that root process ID losing root privileges.

IBdaMann wrote:
That's all. Humans are being "dealt with."

HarveyH55 wrote:
It's still a tool, and would be useless, if there is no possible way to recover the data should a failure occurs. Humans decide what needs to be encrypted. Humans are present when the data is presented. Other humans will still need to access data, for it to be useful. Even if they can't insert a thumbdrive, and copy the selected data, there is still a display, and cameras can be very small...

IBdaMann wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:It's still a tool,

It's not so much a tool as it is an architecture framework. It's a way of thinking about systems that eliminates inherent trust.

IBdaMann wrote:
When you say that humans are the weak link, that's only partially true.

IBdaMann wrote:
Security breaches occur when either a human or a machine acquires unauthorized permissions.

IBdaMann wrote:
Sophisticated hackers search for ways to access system components that are already "trusted." Sometimes, this can only be achieved by accessing other components that are already "trusted." Hackers research ways to chain their way into a system/network, using already trusted components as their steppingstones.

IBdaMann wrote:
In a system/network where this is not possible, this is not possible.

IBdaMann wrote:
I'm not saying that this is the end of security concerns.

IBdaMann wrote:
I'm just saying that this paradigm addresses the weak link of human involvement and eliminates any one human's process ID from acquiring additional authorizations beyond what the organization has given to that user's role or position. Any process ID that is spawned from the outside will forever only have at most "guest" permissions but will usually have none.
An ident is not a process ID. It never will be. People need more than 'guest' permissions.

IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]HarveyH55 wrote:and would be useless, if there is no possible way to recover the data should a failure occurs.

That's a different topic. This is the durability of your data and that is something over which you have complete control. I recommend glancing at the following:

https://blog.westerndigital.com/data-availability-vs-durability/

IBdaMann wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote: Humans decide what needs to be encrypted.

Sure, but it's not quite the same thing as saying that your organization has mandated a particular encryption policy that will be enforced by your system, and that your system will automatically encrypt all message traffic and streaming data that falls under certain criteria. Sure, humans crafted the policy but once it is put into effect, it's in effect and humans do not have any say in the matter at that point.

IBdaMann wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:Humans are present when the data is presented. Other humans will still need to access data, for it to be useful. Even if they can't insert a thumbdrive, and copy the selected data, there is still a display, and cameras can be very small...

Here you are talking about deliberate spying and/or insider threat.

IBdaMann wrote:
I don't deny that intentional criminal or otherwise hostile activity can be entirely prevented;

IBdaMann wrote:
however, physical and technical security continually improves as well.

IBdaMann wrote:
If you were to try to take a very tiny camera into an intelligence headquarters, for example, there's a good chance that once you get beyond the turnstiles, some security personnel will approach you and say "Sir/Ma'am, we need you to step over here."

IBdaMann wrote:
If you were to stick a thumb-drive into a DoD computer at the Pentagon, the phone at that desk will ring, and you had better answer it. The voice at the other end will tell you to not leave, and that personnel are on their way to your location.

IBdaMann wrote:
So, we're getting there, or at least we're moving ever closer in that direction.