Solving Shor's Algorithm to Factor 15: Results & Analysis

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter michael879
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Algorithm
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on the application of Shor's Algorithm to factor the number 15, specifically using the Quantum Fourier Transform (QFT) operator. The user utilized 2 as the random number and observed probabilities for various outcomes, noting a 1/4 probability for the incorrect result of 0. The user expressed confusion regarding the high probability of observing 0 and questioned the algorithm's reliability, especially since the correct period is 4. The analysis reveals potential misunderstandings in the interpretation of results from Shor's Algorithm.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Shor's Algorithm
  • Familiarity with Quantum Fourier Transform (QFT)
  • Basic knowledge of quantum probability distributions
  • Experience with modular arithmetic in quantum computing
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implementation of Shor's Algorithm in Qiskit
  • Learn about the significance of the Quantum Fourier Transform in quantum algorithms
  • Investigate the role of probability distributions in quantum measurement outcomes
  • Explore common pitfalls in interpreting results from quantum algorithms
USEFUL FOR

Quantum computing enthusiasts, researchers in quantum algorithms, and anyone interested in understanding the nuances of Shor's Algorithm and its applications in factoring integers.

michael879
Messages
696
Reaction score
7
hey I have a quick question about this. I was trying to understand the QFT operator, so I manually used shor's algorithm to factor 15. I used 2 for the random number. My results seem a bit weird tho. below are the probabilities of observing each number (the correct answer is 4, since the period of 2^x mod 15 is 4). Also, I found that the probability of observing |x>|f(x)> is 1/4 the probability of |x>.

P(0) = 1/4
P(1) = 0
P(2) = 1/4
P(3) = 0
P(4) = 1/4
P(5) = 0
P(6) = 0
P(7) = 0
P(8) = 1/4
P(9) = 0
P(10) = 0
P(11) = 0
P(12) = 0
P(13) = 0
P(14) = 0
P(14) = 0

I find these results odd for two reasons.

1) there is a 1/4 probability of getting 0. I also did this for N = 6 and a = 5 and similarly found that P(0) = 1/2, which is very high for an obviously wrong answer. Not only that but in the N=6 example your more likely to find 0 as the answer than any of the other answers.

2) The only wrong answer that could possibly show up is 0. 2, 4, and 8 are all correct answers (since 8 is the period also, and searching multiples of the returned result are part of the algorithm so that 2 would work since 2*2=4).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
But why would the probability of 0 be 1/4? Shouldn't it be 0 since its wrong?It seems like this is an issue with the algorithm itself, but I'm not sure. Can anyone help me understand why this might be happening?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K