Jump to content

Talk:Quantum phase estimation algorithm: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Added banners, ratings; Commented on usage of controlled-U gates in article
Image: new section
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".

Revision as of 02:48, 12 March 2019

New Section

Soon I'm going to make a major upgrade to this article. You can see the expected version under User:Omrika/sandbox/QIP/Quantum_phase_estimation, still without references but with major changes and additions. Any comments? Omrika (talk) 16:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I'm not a fan of this "C-U" notation. Older versions of the article didn't have it. I haven't seen it in any other quantum computing literature. I didn't know what C-U was until I figured out that it is not supposed to be "C minus U". I recommend reverting back to the old style as the controlled nature of the unitary is already given by the circuit diagram. The redundant information only adds confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.66.60.168 (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the "C" should go: the standard depiction of a controlled-U gate is the bullet connected to a box labeled "U" and the present notation is misleading. --Qcomp (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed.--Robin (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image

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