Fixes for version 0.16.0 #73
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nice fix @antalszava. Just noticed that two of the tests have the same name and docstring, so I think the first one is never run. Otherwise it looks great!
Quite interesting to compare our different ways of solving the same way, see this _expand_state function. Just tested using that one here as well, as a comparison, and both pass your tests. 😄
Co-authored-by: Theodor <theodor@xanadu.ai>
…orest into fix_qubit_expand
Co-authored-by: Theodor <theodor@xanadu.ai>
…orest into fix_qubit_expand
|
Thanks for the catch @thisac! Should be updated now. Hmm, maybe that could mean that we could consider a standardized |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nice work @antalszava! 💯
maybe that could mean that we could consider a standardized QubitDevice method for expanding the state
Could be a nice thing to keep in mind at least. I agree!
expand_statemethod for the Wavefunction simulator device. Previously it always took the Kronecker product of the subsystems made up of the active wires followed by the subsystems of the inactive wires:|psi> ⊗ |0...0>. This, however, is incorrect in cases such as having 3 qubits, such that the middle qubit is inactive:|psiA> ⊗ |0> ⊗ |psiB>is not equal to|psiA>⊗ |psiB> ⊗ |0>.