On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 9:59 PM, Russell Standish <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 11:27:26AM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > LizR wrote: > > > > > >But there's no-cloning to consider - plus whether a simulated > > >quantum state is the same as a real one... > > > > No-cloning of an unknown quantum state is simply the statement that > > there is no unitary operator that will enable you to transfer the > > properties of one unknown quantum state to another. > > > > Simulating a quantum state might be another matter. Quantum states > > are generally described in terms of some basis in Hilbert space. The > > coefficients of the expansion in that basis are arbitrary complex > > numbers, subject to the usual normalization conventions for the > > state. If you want to simulate this state, you have to simulate > > these coefficients to arbitrary precision. This is not possible in > > finite time with a digital computer. > > Not sure I follow you here. Arbitrary precision does not mean infinite > precision. If I want my calculation to be accurate to 300 digits, then > it can be calculated to 300 digits precision within finite time. If I > then want it to 600 digits, I can do that also, but very likely it > will 10^300 times as long. > Doesn't it only double the amount of processing time to go from 300 digit precision numbers to 600 digit precision numbers? Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
