<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Upper Bounds on the Noise Threshold for Fault-tolerant Quantum Computing · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/0802.1464/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/0802.1464/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Upper Bounds on the Noise Threshold for Fault-tolerant Quantum Computing — mentioned by topynate</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7003165</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:0802.1464:7003165</guid><pubDate>Thu, 02 Jan 2014 23:31:36 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Both NSA and GCHQ have quite the history of co-opting smart mathematicians to create secret theoretical advances in cryptography and cryptanalysis, which could well be relevant given a quantum computer with the following three properties: * Fully general. By this I mean capable of solving BQP problems in polynomial time. This excludes D-Wave machines, for example. * Sufficiently large. 100 qubits would probably enable qualitative advances in cryptanalysis. * Low enough error rate. This is a slightly redundant requirement, as too high an error rate would provably prevent the computer from…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/0802.1464/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>quant-ph</category></item></channel></rss>
