Talk:Quantum phase estimation algorithm

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Mathematics C‑class Low‑priority

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Physics C‑class Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Computer science C‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Computer scienceTemplate:WikiProject Computer scienceComputer science

C

This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Things you can help WikiProject Computer science with:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests :
- Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Computer science, computing, and Internet
Cleanup :
- Computer science articles needing attention
- Computer science articles needing expert attention
Copyedit :
- Computing
Expand :
- Computer science
Infobox :
- Computer science articles without infoboxes
Maintain :
- Timeline of computing 2020–present
Photo :
- Find pictures for the biographies of computer scientists (see List of computer scientists)
- Computing articles needing images
Stubs :
- Computer science stubs
Unreferenced :
- WikiProject Computer science/Unreferenced BLPs
Project-related :
- Tag all relevant articles in Category:Computer science and sub-categories with {{WikiProject Computer science}}

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". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:9880:1A17:FFE2:305B:9CC1:77FC:E0D2 (talk) 02:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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).