Talk:Quantum phase estimation algorithm - Revision history

Cewbot: Maintain {{WPBS}}: 3 WikiProject templates. Remove 1 deprecated parameter: field.

2024-03-09T03:59:11Z

Maintain {{WPBS}}: 3 WikiProject templates. Remove 1 deprecated parameter: field.

← Previous revision		Revision as of 03:59, 9 March 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=C\|		{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=C\|
	{{WikiProject Mathematics\|priority=low~~\|field=discrete~~}}		{{WikiProject Mathematics\|priority=low}}
	{{WikiProject Physics\|importance=low}}		{{WikiProject Physics\|importance=low}}
	{{WikiProject Computer science\|importance=low}}		{{WikiProject Computer science\|importance=low}}

Qwerfjkl (bot): Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)

2024-02-22T13:47:24Z

Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)

← Previous revision		Revision as of 13:47, 22 February 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=C\|
	{{WikiProjectBannerShell\|1=
	{{~~maths~~ ~~rating\|class=C~~\|priority=low\|field=discrete}}		{{WikiProject Mathematics\|priority=low\|field=discrete}}
	{{WikiProject Physics~~\|class=C~~\|importance=low}}		{{WikiProject Physics\|importance=low}}
	{{WikiProject Computer science\|importance=low~~\|class=C~~}}		{{WikiProject Computer science\|importance=low}}
	}}		}}

Tapeworms27: /* Rename to "Quantum phase estimation" */ new section

2023-04-15T13:49:44Z

Rename to "Quantum phase estimation": new section

← Previous revision		Revision as of 13:49, 15 April 2023
Line 35:		Line 35:

	[[User:Miguelmurca\|Miguelmurca]] ([[User talk:Miguelmurca\|talk]]) 15:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)		[[User:Miguelmurca\|Miguelmurca]] ([[User talk:Miguelmurca\|talk]]) 15:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

			== Rename to "Quantum phase estimation" ==

			I believe that the article should be renamed to "Quantum phase estimation". The 'algorithm' in the name is kind of redundant, and most sources call it "Quantum phase estimation" or "phase estimation" anyways (e.g. Nielsen and Chuang, Watrous' lecture notes https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/~watrous/QC-notes/). Is there consensus to do so? [[User:Tapeworms27\|Tapeworms27]] ([[User talk:Tapeworms27\|talk]]) 13:49, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Miguelmurca: (Sorry for multiple edits, but double checked and am still in doubt)

2019-03-13T15:23:40Z

(Sorry for multiple edits, but double checked and am still in doubt)

← Previous revision		Revision as of 15:23, 13 March 2019
Line 23:		Line 23:

	: As long as the article is consistent, the current notation, QFT_n, is not wrong. From a cursory look at other sources it seems that the ''n'' dependence is often omitted altogether (for example it is on Nielsen and Chuang), so I don't see it as particularly troublesome to use QFT_n here (also, changing it would require recreating the image). <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures\|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Luca Innocenti\|Luca Innocenti]] ([[User talk:Luca Innocenti#top\|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Luca Innocenti\|contribs]]) 11:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->		: As long as the article is consistent, the current notation, QFT_n, is not wrong. From a cursory look at other sources it seems that the ''n'' dependence is often omitted altogether (for example it is on Nielsen and Chuang), so I don't see it as particularly troublesome to use QFT_n here (also, changing it would require recreating the image). <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures\|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Luca Innocenti\|Luca Innocenti]] ([[User talk:Luca Innocenti#top\|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Luca Innocenti\|contribs]]) 11:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			== \|sin(x)\| < \|x\| ==

			Hello!

			I may be missing something painfully obvious, but under the section [[Quantum phase estimation algorithm#Measurement\|Measurement]] we have

			<math>\| \sin(\pi \delta) \| \leqslant \| \pi \delta \| \text{ for } \|\delta\| \leqslant \frac{1}{2^{n+1}}</math>

			Doesn't <math> \| \sin(x) \| \leqslant \|x\| </math> generally hold? Why the constraint on <math> \pi \delta </math>?

			[[User:Miguelmurca\|Miguelmurca]] ([[User talk:Miguelmurca\|talk]]) 15:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Miguelmurca: I am not a smart man (- Miguelmurca)

2019-03-13T15:16:49Z

I am not a smart man (- Miguelmurca)

← Previous revision		Revision as of 15:16, 13 March 2019
Line 23:		Line 23:

	: As long as the article is consistent, the current notation, QFT_n, is not wrong. From a cursory look at other sources it seems that the ''n'' dependence is often omitted altogether (for example it is on Nielsen and Chuang), so I don't see it as particularly troublesome to use QFT_n here (also, changing it would require recreating the image). <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures\|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Luca Innocenti\|Luca Innocenti]] ([[User talk:Luca Innocenti#top\|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Luca Innocenti\|contribs]]) 11:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->		: As long as the article is consistent, the current notation, QFT_n, is not wrong. From a cursory look at other sources it seems that the ''n'' dependence is often omitted altogether (for example it is on Nielsen and Chuang), so I don't see it as particularly troublesome to use QFT_n here (also, changing it would require recreating the image). <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures\|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Luca Innocenti\|Luca Innocenti]] ([[User talk:Luca Innocenti#top\|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Luca Innocenti\|contribs]]) 11:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	== \|sin(x)\| < \|x\| ==

	Hello!

	I may be missing something painfully obvious, but under the section [[Quantum phase estimation algorithm#Measurement\|Measurement]] we have

	<math>\| \sin(\pi \delta) \| \leqslant \| \pi \delta \| \text{ for } \|\delta\| \leqslant \frac{1}{2^{n+1}}</math>

	Doesn't <math> \| \sin(x) \| \leqslant \|x\| </math> generally hold? Why the constraint on <math> \pi \delta </math>?

	[[User:Miguelmurca\|Miguelmurca]] ([[User talk:Miguelmurca\|talk]]) 15:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Miguelmurca: /* |sin(x)| < |x| */ new section

2019-03-13T15:06:09Z

|sin(x)| < |x|: new section

← Previous revision		Revision as of 15:06, 13 March 2019
Line 23:		Line 23:

	: As long as the article is consistent, the current notation, QFT_n, is not wrong. From a cursory look at other sources it seems that the ''n'' dependence is often omitted altogether (for example it is on Nielsen and Chuang), so I don't see it as particularly troublesome to use QFT_n here (also, changing it would require recreating the image). <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures\|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Luca Innocenti\|Luca Innocenti]] ([[User talk:Luca Innocenti#top\|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Luca Innocenti\|contribs]]) 11:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->		: As long as the article is consistent, the current notation, QFT_n, is not wrong. From a cursory look at other sources it seems that the ''n'' dependence is often omitted altogether (for example it is on Nielsen and Chuang), so I don't see it as particularly troublesome to use QFT_n here (also, changing it would require recreating the image). <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures\|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Luca Innocenti\|Luca Innocenti]] ([[User talk:Luca Innocenti#top\|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Luca Innocenti\|contribs]]) 11:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			== \|sin(x)\| < \|x\| ==

			Hello!

			I may be missing something painfully obvious, but under the section [[Quantum phase estimation algorithm#Measurement\|Measurement]] we have

			<math>\| \sin(\pi \delta) \| \leqslant \| \pi \delta \| \text{ for } \|\delta\| \leqslant \frac{1}{2^{n+1}}</math>

			Doesn't <math> \| \sin(x) \| \leqslant \|x\| </math> generally hold? Why the constraint on <math> \pi \delta </math>?

			[[User:Miguelmurca\|Miguelmurca]] ([[User talk:Miguelmurca\|talk]]) 15:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

SineBot: Signing comment by Luca Innocenti - ""

2019-03-12T11:35:01Z

Signing comment by Luca Innocenti - ""

← Previous revision		Revision as of 11:35, 12 March 2019
Line 22:		Line 22:
	In the image of the circuit, it should be "QFT_{2^n}" not "QFT_n". <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures\|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2607:9880:1A17:FFE2:305B:9CC1:77FC:E0D2\|2607:9880:1A17:FFE2:305B:9CC1:77FC:E0D2]] ([[User talk:2607:9880:1A17:FFE2:305B:9CC1:77FC:E0D2#top\|talk]]) 02:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->		In the image of the circuit, it should be "QFT_{2^n}" not "QFT_n". <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures\|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2607:9880:1A17:FFE2:305B:9CC1:77FC:E0D2\|2607:9880:1A17:FFE2:305B:9CC1:77FC:E0D2]] ([[User talk:2607:9880:1A17:FFE2:305B:9CC1:77FC:E0D2#top\|talk]]) 02:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	: As long as the article is consistent, the current notation, QFT_n, is not wrong. From a cursory look at other sources it seems that the ''n'' dependence is often omitted altogether (for example it is on Nielsen and Chuang), so I don't see it as particularly troublesome to use QFT_n here (also, changing it would require recreating the image).		: As long as the article is consistent, the current notation, QFT_n, is not wrong. From a cursory look at other sources it seems that the ''n'' dependence is often omitted altogether (for example it is on Nielsen and Chuang), so I don't see it as particularly troublesome to use QFT_n here (also, changing it would require recreating the image). <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures\|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Luca Innocenti\|Luca Innocenti]] ([[User talk:Luca Innocenti#top\|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Luca Innocenti\|contribs]]) 11:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Luca Innocenti at 11:33, 12 March 2019

2019-03-12T11:33:59Z

← Previous revision		Revision as of 11:33, 12 March 2019
Line 21:		Line 21:

	In the image of the circuit, it should be "QFT_{2^n}" not "QFT_n". <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures\|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2607:9880:1A17:FFE2:305B:9CC1:77FC:E0D2\|2607:9880:1A17:FFE2:305B:9CC1:77FC:E0D2]] ([[User talk:2607:9880:1A17:FFE2:305B:9CC1:77FC:E0D2#top\|talk]]) 02:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->		In the image of the circuit, it should be "QFT_{2^n}" not "QFT_n". <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures\|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2607:9880:1A17:FFE2:305B:9CC1:77FC:E0D2\|2607:9880:1A17:FFE2:305B:9CC1:77FC:E0D2]] ([[User talk:2607:9880:1A17:FFE2:305B:9CC1:77FC:E0D2#top\|talk]]) 02:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			: As long as the article is consistent, the current notation, QFT_n, is not wrong. From a cursory look at other sources it seems that the ''n'' dependence is often omitted altogether (for example it is on Nielsen and Chuang), so I don't see it as particularly troublesome to use QFT_n here (also, changing it would require recreating the image).

SineBot: Signing comment by 2607:9880:1A17:FFE2:305B:9CC1:77FC:E0D2 - "/* Image */ new section"

2019-03-12T02:49:48Z

Signing comment by 2607:9880:1A17:FFE2:305B:9CC1:77FC:E0D2 - "Image: new section"

← Previous revision		Revision as of 02:49, 12 March 2019
Line 20:		Line 20:
	== Image ==		== Image ==

			In the image of the circuit, it should be "QFT_{2^n}" not "QFT_n". <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures\|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2607:9880:1A17:FFE2:305B:9CC1:77FC:E0D2\|2607:9880:1A17:FFE2:305B:9CC1:77FC:E0D2]] ([[User talk:2607:9880:1A17:FFE2:305B:9CC1:77FC:E0D2#top\|talk]]) 02:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	In the image of the circuit, it should be "QFT_{2^n}" not "QFT_n".

2607:9880:1A17:FFE2:305B:9CC1:77FC:E0D2: /* Image */ new section

2019-03-12T02:48:47Z

Image: new section

← Previous revision		Revision as of 02:48, 12 March 2019
Line 17:		Line 17:

	::Agreed.--[[User:RobinK\|Robin]] ([[User talk:RobinK\|talk]]) 21:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)		::Agreed.--[[User:RobinK\|Robin]] ([[User talk:RobinK\|talk]]) 21:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

			== Image ==

			In the image of the circuit, it should be "QFT_{2^n}" not "QFT_n".

← Previous revision		Revision as of 03:59, 9 March 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=C\|		{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=C\|
	{{WikiProject Mathematics\|priority=low~~\|field=discrete~~}}		{{WikiProject Mathematics\|priority=low}}
	{{WikiProject Physics\|importance=low}}		{{WikiProject Physics\|importance=low}}
	{{WikiProject Computer science\|importance=low}}		{{WikiProject Computer science\|importance=low}}

← Previous revision		Revision as of 13:47, 22 February 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=C\|
	{{WikiProjectBannerShell\|1=
	{{~~maths~~ ~~rating\|class=C~~\|priority=low\|field=discrete}}		{{WikiProject Mathematics\|priority=low\|field=discrete}}
	{{WikiProject Physics~~\|class=C~~\|importance=low}}		{{WikiProject Physics\|importance=low}}
	{{WikiProject Computer science\|importance=low~~\|class=C~~}}		{{WikiProject Computer science\|importance=low}}
	}}		}}

← Previous revision		Revision as of 15:23, 13 March 2019
Line 23:		Line 23:

	: As long as the article is consistent, the current notation, QFT_n, is not wrong. From a cursory look at other sources it seems that the ''n'' dependence is often omitted altogether (for example it is on Nielsen and Chuang), so I don't see it as particularly troublesome to use QFT_n here (also, changing it would require recreating the image). <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures\|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Luca Innocenti\|Luca Innocenti]] ([[User talk:Luca Innocenti#top\|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Luca Innocenti\|contribs]]) 11:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->		: As long as the article is consistent, the current notation, QFT_n, is not wrong. From a cursory look at other sources it seems that the ''n'' dependence is often omitted altogether (for example it is on Nielsen and Chuang), so I don't see it as particularly troublesome to use QFT_n here (also, changing it would require recreating the image). <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures\|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Luca Innocenti\|Luca Innocenti]] ([[User talk:Luca Innocenti#top\|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Luca Innocenti\|contribs]]) 11:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			== \|sin(x)\| < \|x\| ==

			Hello!

			I may be missing something painfully obvious, but under the section [[Quantum phase estimation algorithm#Measurement\|Measurement]] we have

			<math>\| \sin(\pi \delta) \| \leqslant \| \pi \delta \| \text{ for } \|\delta\| \leqslant \frac{1}{2^{n+1}}</math>

			Doesn't <math> \| \sin(x) \| \leqslant \|x\| </math> generally hold? Why the constraint on <math> \pi \delta </math>?

			[[User:Miguelmurca\|Miguelmurca]] ([[User talk:Miguelmurca\|talk]]) 15:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

← Previous revision		Revision as of 15:16, 13 March 2019
Line 23:		Line 23:

	: As long as the article is consistent, the current notation, QFT_n, is not wrong. From a cursory look at other sources it seems that the ''n'' dependence is often omitted altogether (for example it is on Nielsen and Chuang), so I don't see it as particularly troublesome to use QFT_n here (also, changing it would require recreating the image). <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures\|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Luca Innocenti\|Luca Innocenti]] ([[User talk:Luca Innocenti#top\|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Luca Innocenti\|contribs]]) 11:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->		: As long as the article is consistent, the current notation, QFT_n, is not wrong. From a cursory look at other sources it seems that the ''n'' dependence is often omitted altogether (for example it is on Nielsen and Chuang), so I don't see it as particularly troublesome to use QFT_n here (also, changing it would require recreating the image). <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures\|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Luca Innocenti\|Luca Innocenti]] ([[User talk:Luca Innocenti#top\|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Luca Innocenti\|contribs]]) 11:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	== \|sin(x)\| < \|x\| ==

	Hello!

	I may be missing something painfully obvious, but under the section [[Quantum phase estimation algorithm#Measurement\|Measurement]] we have

	<math>\| \sin(\pi \delta) \| \leqslant \| \pi \delta \| \text{ for } \|\delta\| \leqslant \frac{1}{2^{n+1}}</math>

	Doesn't <math> \| \sin(x) \| \leqslant \|x\| </math> generally hold? Why the constraint on <math> \pi \delta </math>?

	[[User:Miguelmurca\|Miguelmurca]] ([[User talk:Miguelmurca\|talk]]) 15:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

← Previous revision		Revision as of 15:06, 13 March 2019
Line 23:		Line 23:

	: As long as the article is consistent, the current notation, QFT_n, is not wrong. From a cursory look at other sources it seems that the ''n'' dependence is often omitted altogether (for example it is on Nielsen and Chuang), so I don't see it as particularly troublesome to use QFT_n here (also, changing it would require recreating the image). <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures\|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Luca Innocenti\|Luca Innocenti]] ([[User talk:Luca Innocenti#top\|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Luca Innocenti\|contribs]]) 11:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->		: As long as the article is consistent, the current notation, QFT_n, is not wrong. From a cursory look at other sources it seems that the ''n'' dependence is often omitted altogether (for example it is on Nielsen and Chuang), so I don't see it as particularly troublesome to use QFT_n here (also, changing it would require recreating the image). <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures\|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Luca Innocenti\|Luca Innocenti]] ([[User talk:Luca Innocenti#top\|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Luca Innocenti\|contribs]]) 11:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			== \|sin(x)\| < \|x\| ==

			Hello!

			I may be missing something painfully obvious, but under the section [[Quantum phase estimation algorithm#Measurement\|Measurement]] we have

			<math>\| \sin(\pi \delta) \| \leqslant \| \pi \delta \| \text{ for } \|\delta\| \leqslant \frac{1}{2^{n+1}}</math>

			Doesn't <math> \| \sin(x) \| \leqslant \|x\| </math> generally hold? Why the constraint on <math> \pi \delta </math>?

			[[User:Miguelmurca\|Miguelmurca]] ([[User talk:Miguelmurca\|talk]]) 15:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)