User talk:Jehochman: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→The shors algorithm edit: Reply |
→The shors algorithm edit: Reply |
||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
:The bit about Shor’s being efficient because of modular exponentiation was baloney. That operation is what makes shores so inefficient in terms of circuit complexity O(n^3). The binary Fourier transform is also not an efficiency. What makes Shor’s efficient is quantum parallelism and constructive/destructive interference. This allows a readout with significant probability of being a multiple of the order of the subgroup. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 01:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC) |
:The bit about Shor’s being efficient because of modular exponentiation was baloney. That operation is what makes shores so inefficient in terms of circuit complexity O(n^3). The binary Fourier transform is also not an efficiency. What makes Shor’s efficient is quantum parallelism and constructive/destructive interference. This allows a readout with significant probability of being a multiple of the order of the subgroup. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 01:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC) |
||
::Yes, at first I thought the part about modular exponentiation made sense if you're looking at the slightly modified version using phase estimation, but yes it is ballony. |
|||
::I also am not sure why you felt changing my edit of exponential back to sub-exponential? I really think the definition of sub-exponential including things like O(2^(n^k)) for 0 < k < 1 is a bit misleading. There are problems that are complete in EXP-time that take "sub-exponential" time if you use this definition (poly reductions still get you any exponential function) which sounds just wrong! [[User:Quantumly|Quantumly]] ([[User talk:Quantumly|talk]]) 01:54, 7 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 01:54, 7 June 2023
 | Welcome to Jehochman's Talk Page Please feel free to put your feet on the coffee table, and speak candidly. Or for more better relaxation, stretch yourself luxuriously on the chaise longue in Bishzilla's Victorian parlour and mumble incoherently. |
 | Jehochman is busy with graduate school and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
 | This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics:
|
ReferenceExpander
Just a friendly heads-up in case you weren't already aware, since it's installed on your common.js: Careless use of ReferenceExpander has caused serious problems. It's currently at MFD, and a large cleanup project is underway to repair the citations damaged by the script. I and several other users have !voted that the script be deleted or disabled, and I wouldn't recommend using it at all unless you thoroughly check every reference it modifies against the previous revision. If you're interested in a more detailed explanation of the script's issues, Folly Mox has provided an excellent summary at the MFD. — SamX [talk · contribs] 05:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
The shors algorithm edit
can you explain what you meant by ballony? I don't see a problem with how it was before your edits Quantumly (talk) 00:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- The bit about Shor’s being efficient because of modular exponentiation was baloney. That operation is what makes shores so inefficient in terms of circuit complexity O(n^3). The binary Fourier transform is also not an efficiency. What makes Shor’s efficient is quantum parallelism and constructive/destructive interference. This allows a readout with significant probability of being a multiple of the order of the subgroup. Jehochman Talk 01:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, at first I thought the part about modular exponentiation made sense if you're looking at the slightly modified version using phase estimation, but yes it is ballony.
- I also am not sure why you felt changing my edit of exponential back to sub-exponential? I really think the definition of sub-exponential including things like O(2^(n^k)) for 0 < k < 1 is a bit misleading. There are problems that are complete in EXP-time that take "sub-exponential" time if you use this definition (poly reductions still get you any exponential function) which sounds just wrong! Quantumly (talk) 01:54, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
