Hi Mirek,
> > Please be more specific about what do you mean by a quantum counting > algorithm. Sometimes I'm not too bright guy :-) Really? Not here I think. The question *was* and *is* fuzzy. > > > Is this what you mean? > step 1\ |0> > step 2\ |0> + |1> > step 3\ |0> + |1> + |2> > .... > Interesting. Perhaps an electron climbing in some way the energy states at carefully chosen frequences? > > or (a classical machine operated by quantum means) > step 1\ |0> > step 2\ |1> > step 3\ |2> > .... > > or something different :-) My question has perhaps no sense at all. Is there a notion of quantum computation done without any measurement? Is there a purely unitary transformation which "augment" the dimensionality of the initial quantum machine. Does the notion of universal quantum dovetailing makes sense. I don't find my Shi papers, but from what I remind, it gives some good argument about the difficulty of redefining the halting problem (halting in which universe? ...). I have no problem with most quantum algorithm, but no clear idea of what really a quantum computation in general can be, despite I have few doubt it does really exploits superposed "physical realities" (assuming QM, that is the SWE). Don't worry. Sometimes I'm not too bright guy too :-) Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
