Official "Science News" Thread

[rogue]

This Is How Quantum Physics Creates The Largest Cosmic Structures Of All

Athletes have healthier brains that can actually hear better, study says

The Mystery at the Center of the Solar System

Picasso’s Got Nothing on AI Artists

A Deep-Sea Magma Monster Gets a Body Scan

Bill Gates and MIT Have Predicted the World's Next 10 Big Innovations. Here's What They All Have in Common

Student solves a 100-year-old physics enigma

[kriesel]

The Aging Spacecraft of Deep Space

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/...tellar/596152/

[henryzz]

https://www.newscientist.com/article...umber-factors/
This is quite an improvement over anything I have seen before. It is a shame that this is a number easily factorable by Fermat's method. Maybe they relied on that.

[Till]

Originally Posted by henryzz

It is a shame that this is a number easily factorable by Fermat's method. Maybe they relied on that.

1048589 = 2^20 + 13 and 1048601 = 2^20+25. They may have exploited as well that the difference of both factors from 2^20 is representable in 5 bit.

[Dr Sardonicus]

US finally giving boot to official foot measurement

In 1893, the U.S. government defined a foot as 1,200 meters divided by 3,937. Plug those numbers into a calculator and you get 0.3048006 meters. Those last three digits (and it goes on even longer if you want to be technical) are important. Don’t forget them.

In 1933, the international foot was invented. It was simpler: 0.3048 meters, exactly. Those last three digits just get eliminated.

But those digits kept bedeviling engineers. So in 1959, the U.S. government started the international switch and it will finish the job in 2022.

[mart_r]

Originally Posted by henryzz

https://www.newscientist.com/article...umber-factors/
This is quite an improvement over anything I have seen before. It is a shame that this is a number easily factorable by Fermat's method. Maybe they relied on that.

Is there any chance of an explanation as to why they used 15 instead of 19 in that picture??

[xilman]

Originally Posted by mart_r

Is there any chance of an explanation as to why they used 15 instead of 19 in that picture??

It may be that it´s the smallest "non-trivial" composite. It has at least two distinct prime factors and it is not an even number.

That was the reasoning I remember being made when the factorization of 15 held the record for a quantum computation.

[mart_r]

Originally Posted by xilman

It may be that it´s the smallest "non-trivial" composite. It has at least two distinct prime factors and it is not an even number.

That was the reasoning I remember being made when the factorization of 15 held the record for a quantum computation.

I was thinking along these lines, but that still doesn't explain the lack of 19.

[CRGreathouse]

Originally Posted by henryzz

https://www.newscientist.com/article...umber-factors/
This is quite an improvement over anything I have seen before. It is a shame that this is a number easily factorable by Fermat's method. Maybe they relied on that.

Does anyone know details on the algorithm in question, VQF?

[CRGreathouse]

Originally Posted by mart_r

Is there any chance of an explanation as to why they used 15 instead of 19 in that picture??

It could be a mistake, or it could be that (as A061346(1)) it's the single most-factored number by quantum computers.

[axn]

Originally Posted by CRGreathouse

It could be a mistake, or it could be that (as A061346(1)) it's the single most-factored number by quantum computers.

Or it could be a stock photo taken by a professional photographer instead of a mathematician. Much ado about nothing!