>15 is the largest number a quantum computer has been able to factor without tricks
>>16953188Wym by tricks
Everybody knows by now that this is a useless metric to judge the progress on QC
It was also like 20 years ago. Or was it 30 even?
>>16954277>Wym by tricks>While 15 was a landmark, it is no longer the largest number factored by a quantum computer. Using different, often specialized methods (like quantum annealing), researchers have factored numbers as large as (Im not filling it the latex back in). However, the largest number factored using the "purest" form of Shor's algorithm (without tricks) is generally cited as 21. What the fuck does this mean?!;>(without tricks)
>>16955265quantum computer gives random answers and they reroll until the answer is correct. then declare victory
>>16955278Hmm...First attempt a Go is pretty "pissing excellence" and "high speed, low drag".
>>16955278is it like vectorized brute force of manipulating the algorithmic output? im thinking in quant terms lol
