Very nice article!
Quantum Computing for the Curious
11–20 of 26 posts
Re: Quantum Computing for the Curious
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
ok, extremely basic is a bit oversimplifying it. When you start reading quantum algorithms, you will inevitably come across Shor's factorization algorithm, which requires (quantum) phase estimation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_phase_estimation_algor... which requires quantum Fourier transform and some good deal of math. This is when you don't go into the physical implementations. If you want to look at that…
There are algorithms which involve advanced mathematics on classical computers, too. You don't have to understand them to understand how classical computers work. I've never bothered to learn the general number field sieve, and similarly I've never bothered to learn Shor's. I say if you understand gates as unitary matrix multiplication, representing multiple qbits with the tensor product, entanglement, and projective…
True, but:
1. Any serious quantum computing course/book will have Shor's algorithm in the first few chapters (in fact there are not a lot of quantum algorithms which have clear advantage over classical ones). One can teach quite a bit of useful classical algos (sort, binary search, tree/graph-based) without going into mathematics like FFT or jpeg coding.
2. Again valid, but IMHO measurements (and PoVMs) can lead to deep rabbit holes, and I found myself digging in much deeper.
Probably I should read easier expositions to see how effectively they teach. (I come from a EE+physics background, so I do gravitate to math-heavy rigorous explanations)
Re: Quantum Computing for the Curious
#13I have a PhD in quantum information/computing and I knew everything in the essay before reading it, but the additional understanding I got from doing the given spaced repetition flashcards significantly improved my understanding of the material. Everyone who is reading this essay, should sign up and give spaced repetition a try.
Re: Quantum Computing for the Curious
#14Hobby physics nerd here. This thing is mental. I clicked it, saw how long it was, and abandoned. Comments here took me back in and it’s going to turn out to be a real gift.
Re: Quantum Computing for the Curious
#15Very interesting article, I would love to have it in a portable/printable format (e.g. .pdf) can anyone help me out ?
Re: Quantum Computing for the Curious
#16Good time for a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaced_repetition
that remember me of https://metacpan.org/pod/Quantum::Entanglement (good old perl ~20 years old :)
Re: Quantum Computing for the Curious
#17So why does the Hadamard+CNOT acting on two qubits give an entangled state, but a Hadamard acting on a single qubit does not give an entangled state?
Re: Quantum Computing for the Curious
#18So why does the Hadamard+CNOT acting on two qubits give an entangled state, but a Hadamard acting on a single qubit does not give an entangled state?
I think you need 2 qbit to have them entangled
Re: Quantum Computing for the Curious
#19So why does the Hadamard+CNOT acting on two qubits give an entangled state, but a Hadamard acting on a single qubit does not give an entangled state?
I think you need 2 qbit to have them entangled
Exactly. The point of quantum entanglement is that the state of two (or more) qubits cannot be separated. To entangle a single qubit is meaningless.
For two qubits, the simplest entangled states are the Bell States[0] (generated from a CNOT and Hadamard gate). The article gives an example of one of them.
Re: Quantum Computing for the Curious
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you need 2 qbit to have them entangled
Exactly. The point of quantum entanglement is that the state of two (or more) qubits cannot be separated. To entangle a single qubit is meaningless. For two qubits, the simplest entangled states are the Bell States[0] (generated from a CNOT and Hadamard gate). The article gives an example of one of them. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_state
What's the difference between an entangled state and a mixed state?