-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.2k
Classical control phrasing #5514
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Classical control phrasing #5514
Conversation
|
Check out this pull request on See visual diffs & provide feedback on Jupyter Notebooks. Powered by ReviewNB |
docs/classical_control.ipynb
Outdated
| "print(circuit)" | ||
| "print(circuit)\n", | ||
| "\n", | ||
| "# Simulate the message and teleport circuits for bloch vectors\n", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Capitalize Bloch outside variable names.
Also, why are we using Bloch vectors here? I guess bloch_vector_from_state_vector is convenient for comparing individual qubits out of the entire state, but it still feels kind of roundabout.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That's exactly why. It's a slight trade-off of adding more code so that there is more direct printed content indicating that the two qubits are in the same state. The final_state_vectors by themselves are not directly comparable and just showing counts from results could obfuscate the point because different states could produce the same results. Is there a better way of seeing the state of a single qubit?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You're probably right about it being the clearest comparison - I couldn't find a better alternative in a quick search. Let's keep the code as-is but clarify why we're using Bloch vectors in the comment.
95-martin-orion
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ready to merge once the clarifying comment on Bloch vector usage is added.
|
Automerge cancelled: A status check is failing. |
|
Automerge cancelled: A required status check is not present. Missing statuses: ['Misc check', 'Pytest Ubuntu (3.7)', 'Pytest Ubuntu (3.8)', 'Pytest Ubuntu (3.9)', 'Pytest Windows (3.7)', 'Pytest Windows (3.8)', 'Pytest Windows (3.9)', 'Typescript lint check', 'Typescript tests', 'Typescript tests coverage'] |
Some phrasing changes to the new classical control section. Ran a formatter.
Some phrasing changes to the new classical control section. Ran a formatter.