Besides, the empirical data shows otherwise. It takes 12 qubits to factor 15. We're up to 53 now.
With quantum annealing, a 20 bit number has been factored with 97 qubits. Not on a real quantum computer yet, of course.
So I have no idea what you are talking about.
Erm, OK. I guess we agree that nobody has factored the number 15 on a quantum computer yet.
Maybe you should read the paper I helpfully linked you above.
I was referring to the quantum annealing example, because no 97 qubit quantum computer exists yet.
Did you read the nature article, or just the press releases?
Both methods requires 饾挭(log2(饾憗)) qubits in total, where N is the number to be factored. The novelty of our demonstration of quantum annealing for prime factorization is based on the reduction in quantum resources required to execute factoring and the experimental verification of the algorithmic accuracy using currently available hardware. As a proof-of-concept, we have demonstrated these methods by factoring integers using the D-Wave 2000Q quantum annealing hardware, but these methods may be used on any other quantum annealing system with a similar number of qubits, qubit degree of connectivity, and hardware parameter precision. Assuming that quantum annealing hardware systems will continue to grow both in the number of qubits and bits of precision capabilities, our methods offer a promising path toward factor much larger numbers in the future.
And there is this too: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11433-018-9307-...
Are you just going to sit there and lob lame insults or do you have anything meaningful to contribute?
"RSA cryptography is based on the difficulty of factoring large integers, which is an NP-hard (and hence intractable) problem for a classical computer."
That is incorrect: there is no proof that factoring is NP-hard. Anyway, you can hardly expect me to take anything they say after this seriously.
I just... I can't.