Timeline for If CNOTs and single qubit gates are universal then why do we need to prove that controlled U operations can be composed by them as well?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 20, 2019 at 6:05 | review | Close votes | |||
| Feb 21, 2019 at 17:04 | |||||
| Feb 19, 2019 at 14:35 | comment | added | Norbert Schuch | Unlike the universality result, which is a random claim? | |
| Feb 19, 2019 at 13:37 | comment | added | bilanush | I don't think the comparison to Cauchy Schwar is valid. As it's a theorem. But here what's the point | |
| Feb 18, 2019 at 9:53 | comment | added | bilanush | I thought, but I am not sure. Maybe their universality proof which is based on factorization of unitary into two level matrices doesn't hold for controlled U just like it doesn't hold for CNOT | |
| Feb 18, 2019 at 9:50 | comment | added | bilanush | But is this indeed the case here? They give a pretty lengthy and complicated proof for this . What's the point if later it can be proven by the universality. Why do they have to show controlled U and not other special cases? | |
| Feb 18, 2019 at 7:41 | answer | added | DaftWullie | timeline score: 2 | |
| Feb 17, 2019 at 21:15 | comment | added | Norbert Schuch | Because it might be more insightful? These gates might be more relevant? Because the construction you get is simpler? Or just for educational purposes? This is a bit like asking why a math textbook first proves Cauchy-Schwarz and then later Hölder's inequality, given that the former is a special case. | |
| Feb 17, 2019 at 16:47 | history | edited | bilanush | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| Feb 17, 2019 at 16:17 | history | edited | Sanchayan Dutta | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 1 character in body; edited tags; edited tags
|
| Feb 17, 2019 at 16:10 | history | asked | bilanush | CC BY-SA 4.0 |