O(n)

Wouldn't this kill encryption?

>>62198471
Yes

>>62198471
Only assymetrical, one time pads are safe. Plus there still is quantum stuff.

>>62198505
>>62198471
But on the plus side, it would allow extreme improvements to compression algorithms.

>>62198507
>one time pads are safe
As long as they're at least as long as the data itself, which means that you've broken encryption for all practical purposes.

Memory would be compressed to entropy and networking would be much faster.

>>62198520
You'd have to invest in quantum hardware fast then, the crypto atom bomb would be scary.

>>62198567
Quantum computers are only encryption killers because we haven't been able to prove that P = NP. If it turns out that every problem is in P after all, then this application of quantum computers would be meaningless as everyone and their shitty home laptop would be able to bruteforce encryption.

File: Picklerick.jpg (61KB, 605x800px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 605x800px

>>62198460
*thinking*

>>62198588
I'm talking about quantum encryption not quantum computing.

You can use teleportation as a challenge for symmetric encryption.

>>62198612
Ah, sorry. My mistake. Yeah, you're absolutely right regarding the spooky action from a distance thing.

>>62198460
Networking only limited by the speed of light.
Low latency everything.

Programming practices that go towards using less memory over runtime (optimization goes out basically) and making small easy to understand solutions to problems without any clever mathematical tricks.

Bubble sort is now best sort.

>>62198460
This world isnt affected, its all the pocket universes problem now. let them deal with it.
Now we can live in peace.

>O(n)
He will have to beat my O(log n) first

File: 1352075116162.jpg (32KB, 410x396px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 410x396px

>>62198460
oh my god our universe is going to end when we solve the problem the creator universe hasn't

>>62198860
You need to describe the problem, so it takes O(1n+k) where k is the infinitesimal time to run the universe.

some algorithms are still valid, everything that solves in constant time or some of the dynamic programming stuff will still make sense for instance.

>>62198881
I wouldn't worry about that, "are traps gay?" is undecidable.

>>62199135
>You need to describe the problem
Not if I can describe it in less bits than its full description.

>>62198460
stop watching rick and morty

and btw this wouldn't be "O(n)" retard

>>62199148
>lol i can solve kolmogorov complexity
You do understand that n is the input description of the problem right?

>>62199155
I actually got the idea while reading The Diamond Age.
>this wouldn't be "O(n)" retard
Explain.

>>62198600
What did he mean by this?

strange to read about this on /g/, i just had the same thought a few days ago.
a more interesting thought experiment - all problems are now O(1) (say, 1 second) to solve.
>inb4 impossible because you can solve the halting problem with it
not really, because you wouldn't know how to feed a simulation of this device back into the device.
i think if this ever happens it will bring the singularity very quickly.

>>62198505
not OTP encryption. impossible to crack even with infinite computational power. the cypher just doesn't contain any information that makes it crackable. you can prove this mathematically and it's fairly trivial

>>62199254
My first thought was to make it O(1), but is does raise some absurd problems. Plus you can't make a somewhat plausible scifi scenario around it.

Though you can probably take it further if you don't restrict yourself with our current knowledge of physics. Say you actually make something that can solve any problem through time travel but it doesn't absolve you from the complexity, you just have to put in as much energy as the thing would run in normal time.

>>62199169
it's not dependent on input length. seems more dependent on chance. how soon the universe happens to develop life, how intelligent that life is, how quickly they solve the problem, etc.

>>62199357
You seem to think that this process requires life or actually stealing the answer from inhabitants of the pocket universes.

It's purely computational. Banging atoms together in a state machine until they draw out the solution.
The only "magic" in it is using the fact that other universes aren't bound by our time constraints.

Effectively, from our point of view the solving is instantaneous.

Now if you want to argue that we should count the complexity of operations done outside our universe then I'll accuse you of tragically missing the point.

>>62199458
okay. well that sounds kinda like a quantum computer with extra magic though.

>>62199601
Yeah. Thinly veiled "what would happen if we got very good at compute very fast and would the world collapse?" thread.

Quantum computing sucks at most useful problems though.

>>62199334
If we were in a simulation and that simulation was simply a tree traversal of all possible scenarios within the simulation, think a very large and complicated tictactoe game, then the real world could feed the simulation the answer to any problem it could produce in O (1).