This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics 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.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles 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.Computer scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Computer scienceTemplate:WikiProject Computer scienceComputer science articles
I think PostBQP = PP should be merged with this article, since it is unlikely that there is much more to say about PostBQP other than the fact that it is equal to PP. The PostBQP article also provides enough background for someone to understand the equivalence of the two classes. One detailed article on PostBQP which explains pretty much everything that is interesting about PostBQP is better than several shorter articles. --Robin (talk) 01:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - I originally merged this article with PP, as an alternate characterisation of that class, but that may have been going a bit too far if this article is to become large. Dcoetzee 02:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My main reason for leaving the proof as a separate page was to avoid making the PostBQP page too long (e.g. which might risk having the proof deleted), but I don't have a strong feeling on it, whatever better fits wikipedia seems good to me now that I'm done editing it.Daveagp (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then, I'll perform the merge. --Robin (talk) 03:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
