<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Error Targets on oqft.com</title>
    <link>https://oqft.com/tags/error-targets/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Error Targets on oqft.com</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Nov 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://oqft.com/tags/error-targets/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Choosing an Error Target for a 2048-Qubit OQFT, Each Tenfold Tightening Costs 24 to 32 Layers</title>
      <link>https://oqft.com/choosing-an-error-target-for-a-2048-qubit-oqft-each-tenfold-tightening-costs-24-to-32-layers/</link>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Nov 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://oqft.com/choosing-an-error-target-for-a-2048-qubit-oqft-each-tenfold-tightening-costs-24-to-32-layers/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;OQFT asks for one number besides the register size: the error target, &lt;code&gt;--eps&lt;/code&gt;. It&amp;rsquo;s the average squared error you&amp;rsquo;re willing to accept over all inputs. Pick it too loose and Shor&amp;rsquo;s algorithm misses more often. Pick it too tight and you pay in depth. This case study puts numbers on that trade for a 2,048-qubit register, the size a 2048-bit RSA key calls for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We ran &lt;code&gt;oqft stats -n 2048&lt;/code&gt; at four targets, from 0.1 down to 0.0001, and recorded the block width OQFT chose for each.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
