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>
> ....
>
Interesting. Perhaps an electron climbing in some way the energy
states at carefully chosen frequences?
>
> or (a classical machine operated by quantum means)
> step 1\ |0>
> step 2\ |1>
> step 3\ |2>
> ....
>
> or something different :-)
My question has perhaps no sense at all. Is there a notion of quantum
computation done without any measurement? Is there a purely unitary
transformation which "augment" the dimensionality of the initial
quantum machine. Does the notion of universal quantum dovetailing
makes sense.
I don't find my Shi papers, but from what I remind, it gives some good
argument about the difficulty of redefining the halting problem
(halting in which universe? ...).
I have no problem with most quantum algorithm, but no clear idea of
what really a quantum computation in general can be, despite I have
few doubt it does really exploits superposed "physical
realities" (assuming QM, that is the SWE).
Don't worry. Sometimes I'm not too bright guy too :-)
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Wed Jan 21 2009 - 12:35:47 PST