This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Quantum computing article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Quantum computing is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Material from Quantum computing was split to List of proposed quantum registers from this version. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. |
The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
They lead to the exact same article, but the Quantum Computing language links seem to supersede the Quantum Computer one. So there are about 30 links language links missing from the Quantum Computing article. Justcheckingin ( talk) 05:22, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
quantum computerpage also has a
quantum computingpage (and vice versa), creating a new redirect for languages that have one but not the other. I do not speak most of these languages, so I do not feel comfortable making dozens of redirect pages with titles that I do not understand. Do you think that it would be appropriate to add Wikidata entries pointing directly to the existing pages? For example, adding an entry to d:Q17995793 linking to als:Quantencomputer? Then, we could leave it to people who speak those languages to create the
quantum computingredirects and update the Wikidata entry to the (more precise) sitelink to redirect. — Freoh 11:58, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Given that Quantum Computing is far from producing useful results (aside from deliberately far-fetched demos), why is the material on Skepticism buried so deep under engineering? I would think that most of the readers aren't as interested in the mathematical formalisms as in whether QC is living up to the hype. Igor Markov 00:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
mathematical formalismsin § Quantum information processing, but I think that it would be better to mention algorithmic problems in § Algorithms and engineering challenges in § Engineering rather than having a separate uselessness section. — Freoh 22:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
The lead on this article is too long. To be more readable to a wider audience, it should be shorter.
I caution anyone against putting a simple "lead too long" template on the article (Template:Lead too long), because it will show the message at the top of the article to all readers, whether or not they have the ability or desire to change the article. However, here on the talk page this message may be more signal and less noise. 96.227.223.203 ( talk) 02:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
I have corrected the wrongful use of the word "exponentially" in a couple of places where it was simply meant as an equivalent to "a lot". I am aware of this trend where "exponentially" has become a buzzword. But.. The word "exponential" is a well defined mathematical term (see article Exponential growth). Seeing expressions such as "expeonentially faster" etc in cheap tv-movies is one thing that one may shake one's head at and shrug. But, not least for reasons of clarity, I don't think this kind of buzzwording should occur in a technical Wikipedia article.
- RP Nielsen ( talk) 13:02, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Just a sidebar...it's quite common and legit for there to be a common meaning of a term which is different than it's technical meaning. The latter does not make the former illegitimate. North8000 ( talk) 14:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Hey everyone,
Would it be helpful to place more emphasis on why one would use quantum computing from the get go rather than starting from a hardware perspective?
The current beginning talks about the use of quantum computing in terms of quantum devices being operated but I would argue that the entire existence of quantum computing though is due to using quantum mechanics to better solve scalability problems that classical algorithms cannot manage.
From what I understand , if I were a reader, I would also risk "putting the word quantum in front of everything." Would it be fair to say this?
I am not sure if people agree with me on this. Thoughts? Erdabravest ( talk) 00:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Quantum computing article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Quantum computing is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Material from Quantum computing was split to List of proposed quantum registers from this version. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. |
The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
They lead to the exact same article, but the Quantum Computing language links seem to supersede the Quantum Computer one. So there are about 30 links language links missing from the Quantum Computing article. Justcheckingin ( talk) 05:22, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
quantum computerpage also has a
quantum computingpage (and vice versa), creating a new redirect for languages that have one but not the other. I do not speak most of these languages, so I do not feel comfortable making dozens of redirect pages with titles that I do not understand. Do you think that it would be appropriate to add Wikidata entries pointing directly to the existing pages? For example, adding an entry to d:Q17995793 linking to als:Quantencomputer? Then, we could leave it to people who speak those languages to create the
quantum computingredirects and update the Wikidata entry to the (more precise) sitelink to redirect. — Freoh 11:58, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Given that Quantum Computing is far from producing useful results (aside from deliberately far-fetched demos), why is the material on Skepticism buried so deep under engineering? I would think that most of the readers aren't as interested in the mathematical formalisms as in whether QC is living up to the hype. Igor Markov 00:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
mathematical formalismsin § Quantum information processing, but I think that it would be better to mention algorithmic problems in § Algorithms and engineering challenges in § Engineering rather than having a separate uselessness section. — Freoh 22:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
The lead on this article is too long. To be more readable to a wider audience, it should be shorter.
I caution anyone against putting a simple "lead too long" template on the article (Template:Lead too long), because it will show the message at the top of the article to all readers, whether or not they have the ability or desire to change the article. However, here on the talk page this message may be more signal and less noise. 96.227.223.203 ( talk) 02:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
I have corrected the wrongful use of the word "exponentially" in a couple of places where it was simply meant as an equivalent to "a lot". I am aware of this trend where "exponentially" has become a buzzword. But.. The word "exponential" is a well defined mathematical term (see article Exponential growth). Seeing expressions such as "expeonentially faster" etc in cheap tv-movies is one thing that one may shake one's head at and shrug. But, not least for reasons of clarity, I don't think this kind of buzzwording should occur in a technical Wikipedia article.
- RP Nielsen ( talk) 13:02, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Just a sidebar...it's quite common and legit for there to be a common meaning of a term which is different than it's technical meaning. The latter does not make the former illegitimate. North8000 ( talk) 14:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Hey everyone,
Would it be helpful to place more emphasis on why one would use quantum computing from the get go rather than starting from a hardware perspective?
The current beginning talks about the use of quantum computing in terms of quantum devices being operated but I would argue that the entire existence of quantum computing though is due to using quantum mechanics to better solve scalability problems that classical algorithms cannot manage.
From what I understand , if I were a reader, I would also risk "putting the word quantum in front of everything." Would it be fair to say this?
I am not sure if people agree with me on this. Thoughts? Erdabravest ( talk) 00:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)