On 21 Jan 2009, at 20:19, Mirek Dobsicek wrote:
>
>
>> My question has perhaps no sense at all. Is there a notion of quantum
>> computation done without any measurement?
>
> Quantum lambda calculus by Andre van Tonder does not containt
> measurement.
> http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0307150v5
>
> My question has perhaps no sense at all. Is there a notion of quantum
> computation done without any measurement?
Quantum lambda calculus by Andre van Tonder does not containt measurement.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0307150v5
>From the abstract, he proves equivalence between his quantum
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
Hi Bruno,
> I have finished the reading of the paper I mentioned (Deutsch's
> Universal Quantum Turing Machine revisited) and I see they have very
> similar problems, probably better described.
I finished a rather careful reading of that paper (QTM revisited) too,
http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0
On 12 Jan 2009, at 17:24, Mirek Dobsicek wrote:
>
> Thank you for a quick answer! I'll take a look at it, my curiosity
> approves additional items on my TODO list :-)
Manage keeping finite your todo list :)
I have finished the reading of the paper I mentioned (Deutsch's
Universal Quantum Tu
Thank you for a quick answer! I'll take a look at it, my curiosity
approves additional items on my TODO list :-)
Best,
mirek
> The classical universal
> dovetailer generates easily all the quantum computations, but I find
> hard to just define *one* unitary transformation, without measurement,
6 matches
Mail list logo
