![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
There seems to be some inconsistency in the encodings used for qubits in optical modes in this article. Qubits and modes seems to describe encoding a single qubit per mode by the presence of absence of a photon, whereas the Hadamard in Implementations of elementary quantum gates is clearly encoded in two modes, presumably by which mode the photon is in. I attempted to clarify the diagrams for Hadamrd and CNOT in light of this, but if possible sticking primarily to one encoding (while mentioning the other as an alternative) might make the article more accessible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azaghal of Belegost ( talk • contribs) 07:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
The picture showing the implementation of the CNOT gate does not seem right. While the top part indeed shows a CNOT implementation, the implementation shown in the bottom part uses only one input qubit (and hence cannot be a controlled gate). -- 2001:67C:10EC:52CB:8000:0:0:13FA ( talk) 16:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
The KLM is a LOQC model which is universal for quantum computation. Yet there are other models that are not universal. such models are also important, e.g., due to solving the boson sampling problem that is believed to be beyond the ability of a polynomial regular computer. I did several modifications to clarify this point. Tal Mor ( talk) 12:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I suggest that this page be split into pages titled KLM Protocol and Linear optical quantum computing. The page "KLM Protocol" will discuss the KLM model and LOQC will compare between the known models (KLM and Boson Sampling) I am currently working on those two pages and intend to make the split in the following days 21:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaniv.N ( talk • contribs)
(pasting conversation from my talk page for future reference.)
Hello DokReggar, I saw that you reverted some of my edits in LOQC, did you find those edits problematic? If so, can you please explain -- Yaniv.N ( talk) 01:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
#!/bin/
DokReggar
-talk
10:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
#!/bin/
DokReggar
-talk
08:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
#!/bin/
DokReggar
-talk
08:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
#!/bin/
DokReggar
-talk
10:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)Hello, so at the last part of this section it says
Since any two rotations along orthogonal rotating axes can generate arbitrary rotations in the Bloch sphere, one can use a set of symmetric beam splitters and mirrors to realize an arbitrary operators for QIP.
I think this is wrong, since symmetric beam splitters and mirrors both generate rotations along the x axis of the Bloch's sphere. I think it should say phase shifters instead of mirrors, since those generate rotations along the z axis of the Bloch's sphere — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.203.65.56 ( talk) 17:06, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
There seems to be some inconsistency in the encodings used for qubits in optical modes in this article. Qubits and modes seems to describe encoding a single qubit per mode by the presence of absence of a photon, whereas the Hadamard in Implementations of elementary quantum gates is clearly encoded in two modes, presumably by which mode the photon is in. I attempted to clarify the diagrams for Hadamrd and CNOT in light of this, but if possible sticking primarily to one encoding (while mentioning the other as an alternative) might make the article more accessible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azaghal of Belegost ( talk • contribs) 07:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
The picture showing the implementation of the CNOT gate does not seem right. While the top part indeed shows a CNOT implementation, the implementation shown in the bottom part uses only one input qubit (and hence cannot be a controlled gate). -- 2001:67C:10EC:52CB:8000:0:0:13FA ( talk) 16:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
The KLM is a LOQC model which is universal for quantum computation. Yet there are other models that are not universal. such models are also important, e.g., due to solving the boson sampling problem that is believed to be beyond the ability of a polynomial regular computer. I did several modifications to clarify this point. Tal Mor ( talk) 12:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I suggest that this page be split into pages titled KLM Protocol and Linear optical quantum computing. The page "KLM Protocol" will discuss the KLM model and LOQC will compare between the known models (KLM and Boson Sampling) I am currently working on those two pages and intend to make the split in the following days 21:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaniv.N ( talk • contribs)
(pasting conversation from my talk page for future reference.)
Hello DokReggar, I saw that you reverted some of my edits in LOQC, did you find those edits problematic? If so, can you please explain -- Yaniv.N ( talk) 01:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
#!/bin/
DokReggar
-talk
10:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
#!/bin/
DokReggar
-talk
08:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
#!/bin/
DokReggar
-talk
08:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
#!/bin/
DokReggar
-talk
10:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)Hello, so at the last part of this section it says
Since any two rotations along orthogonal rotating axes can generate arbitrary rotations in the Bloch sphere, one can use a set of symmetric beam splitters and mirrors to realize an arbitrary operators for QIP.
I think this is wrong, since symmetric beam splitters and mirrors both generate rotations along the x axis of the Bloch's sphere. I think it should say phase shifters instead of mirrors, since those generate rotations along the z axis of the Bloch's sphere — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.203.65.56 ( talk) 17:06, 7 May 2021 (UTC)