Talk:Linear optical quantum computing

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted on 18 December 2013 by reviewer Azaghal of Belegost (talk · contribs).

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Qubit encoding[edit]

There seems to be some inconsistency in the encodings used for qubits in optical modes in this article. Qubits and modes seems to describe encoding a single qubit per mode by the presence of absence of a photon, whereas the Hadamard in Implementations of elementary quantum gates is clearly encoded in two modes, presumably by which mode the photon is in. I attempted to clarify the diagrams for Hadamrd and CNOT in light of this, but if possible sticking primarily to one encoding (while mentioning the other as an alternative) might make the article more accessible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azaghal of Belegost (talk • contribs) 07:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent figure[edit]

The picture showing the implementation of the CNOT gate does not seem right. While the top part indeed shows a CNOT implementation, the implementation shown in the bottom part uses only one input qubit (and hence cannot be a controlled gate). --2001:67C:10EC:52CB:8000:0:0:13FA (talk) 16:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

clarifying that there are variants of LOQC[edit]

The KLM is a LOQC model which is universal for quantum computation. Yet there are other models that are not universal. such models are also important, e.g., due to solving the boson sampling problem that is believed to be beyond the ability of a polynomial regular computer. I did several modifications to clarify this point.Tal Mor (talk) 12:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spliting this page to KLM Protocol and LOQC =[edit]

I suggest that this page be split into pages titled KLM Protocol and Linear optical quantum computing. The page "KLM Protocol" will discuss the KLM model and LOQC will compare between the known models (KLM and Boson Sampling) I am currently working on those two pages and intend to make the split in the following days 21:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaniv.N (talk • contribs)

Page structure and boson sampling/KLM protocol[edit]

(pasting conversation from my talk page for future reference.)

Hello DokReggar, I saw that you reverted some of my edits in LOQC, did you find those edits problematic? If so, can you please explain --Yaniv.N (talk) 01:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yaniv.N:Hi; thanks for coming here! The first thing is that the sentence structures you employ are hard to read and there are some grammar mistakes (but do not worry, somebody else can correct those). You also have a tendency to write "we", but Wikipedia is not a scientific paper, it is an encyclopedia, and must remain neutral and factual. And since there are now separate articles for the KLM protocol and boson sampling (thanks to you, among others :-)), I would prefer that the "main" article on linear optics quantum computing remains as much technology-agnostic as possible. I hope that helps! #!/bin/DokReggar -talk 10:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I completely understands that fixing sentence structures and wrong tendencies are necessary, but i think that it is better for the LOQC article to include as much comparisons between the KLM protocol and boson sampling as possible, since it is the main article and those are the plausible technologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaniv.N (talk • contribs) 00:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yaniv.N:okay. I suggest that for the moment, comparisons stay in the dedicated section, and the remaining part of the article stays technology-agnostic, as far as we can. If the "comparison" section grows too large, we will rework the article structure. #!/bin/DokReggar -talk 08:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

okay. i have added an paragraph which you previously deleted to the boson sampling section, is that okay?--Yaniv.N (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yaniv.N::I think that the sections on the KLM protocol and boson sampling are too complex for this article. They should be introductory paragraphs describing the history and basic principles, and the remaining information should be in the dedicated articles. The LOQC page does not aim at replacing the two implementations, but at providing an abstract description of the technology (in the same way as you could describe a relational database without having to describe the internals of MariaDB or PostgreSQL). Hope that helps. #!/bin/DokReggar -talk 08:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yaniv.N: Wow; you did an awesome job on your recent edits. Thanks a lot! #!/bin/DokReggar -talk 10:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Error in Implementations of elementary quantum gates[edit]

Hello, so at the last part of this section it says

Since any two $SU(2)$ rotations along orthogonal rotating axes can generate arbitrary rotations in the Bloch sphere, one can use a set of symmetric beam splitters and mirrors to realize an arbitrary $SU(2)$ operators for QIP.

I think this is wrong, since symmetric beam splitters and mirrors both generate rotations along the x axis of the Bloch's sphere. I think it should say phase shifters instead of mirrors, since those generate rotations along the z axis of the Bloch's sphere — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.203.65.56 (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]