Talk:Quantum circuit

message: that article is about topological quantum computing.  It is related, but only vaguely.  I think it is confusing to cite here.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.71.110 (talk) 16:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  why is freedman larsen wang cited here? 

message: Template for a confusing article added. This article does not explain to the layman what a quantum circuit is, only some boffins will understand it, and probably not many of them either. The formulas will remain unintelligible to the layman so I am not sure what the point is of having them unless they can be explained in small understandable steps. As far as I know Wikipedia is not a repository for intellectuals only, but should serve the community in general.
The page needs to explain clearly to the layman what a quantum circuit is and perhaps with some simple examples so that the features and applications of quantum circuits become comprehensible.
I would say at least half the article should focus on the layman. The introduction is especially poor, giving the layman no real clue what a quantum circuit really is but is instead a collection of jargon aimed at physicists. 190.76.28.253 (talk) 04:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly agree that the equations are of little value and a friendlier introduction would be better for everyone, scientists or not. If you are able to provide this, it would be much appreciated. Skippydo (talk) 05:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I doubt this article could be written much more clearly without being a book length work.  The author does his best to use analogies, but the simple fact is that no one who hasn't taken at least a graduate level quantum mechanics course is going to be able to thoroughly understand the concept.  Also, making this article any less confusing would involve duplicating information from several other articles that are already pretty well written, such as the articles on Quantum Computers and Qubits.  The confusing tag isn't meant to mark things that are inherently confusing, and I think this is one example of that misuse.  However, the introduction could be a bit more thorough.  Therefore, I'm removing the confusing tag and adding the technical tag to the talk page as suggested on the cleanup tags page. David.S.Hollman (talk) 15:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is confusing 

message: It is not clear in this context what ell squared function is (represented by the cursive l).
:H_{\operatorname{QB}(n)}= \ell^2(\{0,1\}^n).
63.73.199.69 (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ell squared operator not defined 

message: WCNOT) is used twice in the article. I am wondering if the closing bracket has some meaning. --mfb (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  W_CNOT) - bracket? 

message: I sort of understood this up to about half way through "Quantum Calculations", where there seem to be some undefined terms. These may be things that are obvious within the field, but links would be helpful. Examples:
> observables in quantum mechanics are usually defined in terms of projection valued measures on R;
What is R? The set of real numbers?
> Y valued observable
Does this mean an single observable consisting of Y quantities, i.e. a vector (in the mathematical rather than physical sense)?
Where is δ defined? Is the inequality intended to be the definition, and if so what is its significance?
--Scottwh (talk) 12:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: δ is a measure how good your experiment is - the smaller δ is the better. Not sure about R. --mfb (talk) 17:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undefined terms? 

message: Australia acheaved worlds 1st quantum inter grated circuit 2022.
Australian company owns world wide I.P 
https://ia.acs.org.au/article/2022/world-first-quantum-integrated-circuit-made-in-australia.html 49.185.170.202 (talk) 13:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worlds first quantum integrated circuit  

message: 1) The explanations for why using FPGAs in particular are not convincing: 
"FPGA is a kind of hardware that excels at executing operations in parallel, supports pipelining, has on-chip memory resources with low access latency, and offers the flexibility to reconfigure the hardware architecture on-the-fly which make it a well suited tool to handle matrix multiplication." 
Most of this also applies to GPUs, which are currently used for AI (which in its current form is sometimes derogatorily called "just linear algebra").
2) The cited blog post doesn't provide enough evidence either for the claim that "This finding underscores the feasibility of leveraging FPGAs to accelerate quantum computing simulations": 
The time complexity argument looks suspicious, because getting an exponential speedup in a classical computer would imply that real(not simulated) quantum computers wouldn't be needed anymore. It probably requires an exponential amount of chip area in the FPGA instead, which wouldn't scale much beyond the 5-qubits tested.
3) A large portion of the section comes from a single IP and cites a single blog post, which looks a lot like self promotion. I respect personal projects that come from a "hackers spirit"(technological curiosity), but presented as a research finding, this is not scientific enough for a Wikipedia article. 84.141.144.13 (talk) 16:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Acceleration with FPGAs"-section has issues