@Mithrandir24601 Why did you delete the N&C answer listing post and not the original post? I am new to the meta side of SE, so do not really understand the reasoning you give.
Because it would seem to me to have been better to not have the listings on a post discussing whether or not to make them. It's waaay cleaner that way
@SLesslyTall A few um, 'higher-level' reasons - the original post is asking if a certain thing is allowed, which is a perfectly good post. This first post also makes it clear that these questions are on-topic (which the second one doesn't and can't without becoming a duplicate of the first) even if there are questions (such as that one that someone pointed out isn't normally relevant to QC) that would normally involve some sort of argument as to whether it's truly on-topic here or not
(and it makes it clear these questions specifically are on topic)
Generally, on other SE sites, similar question series exist and these are also perfectly good. However, what apparently tends to happen is that these types of posts tend to fall into disarray with time
@SLesslyTall If you do want a list of questions, for the minute, the original post is the best place to put them (although I don't think even this is a good idea to be honest and I might end up having to get rid of that as well). Also, can you do that thing where you leave a header in each question saying that it's part of the series? I'm sorry this had to happen but I do really think that the idea of having the questions and answers from N&C is a good one
@SLesslyTall It's not necessary but it would prevent having potential issues about whether or not a question in that series is allowed (such as that one saying that maths questions about vectors that are only tangentially related to QC shouldn't really be on QC [I'm simplifying this a bit]) go away. It also serves the purpose of showing that they're part of a series
Ok, but a better solution would be to a) Leave both meta posts up, but with the listing page linked to the post discussing the exercises, b) Link all exercises to the listing meta post. That way if people see the posts and question the validity, they can click through the links to find the first meta post and comment away without having all users that just want to list be directed to the first post.
@Mithrandir24601 I thought about that, yes. I don't know whether it qualifies as a meta tag. I mean, it doesn't have to I guess, as it's just a tag collecting questions about a specific topic (exercises from N&C). Maybe one could make it more general than N&C and have it include also other similar questions referring to other books, I don't know
@Mithrandir24601 I don't understand what you are saying here, and why the second post is a bad thing to have. I agree that it is hard to maintain these, but they still remain valuable resources imo
@SLesslyTall each tag has associated a wiki describing the tag. One could put the summary of the questions/answers in there (although the rep requirements to edit those are more strict than regular questions)
@glS It might be the case that, because it's so specific, it might not be a meta tag? I'm not really sure on the differences and more importantly, what makes a meta tag bad in the first place, so I'll need to find this out first
for reference, here is a post on meta.maths.SE that is similar to what we are talking about here: https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1868/173147 It is similar in that it aims to be a big collection of questions of some sort
@glS Yeah, those are faq questions, which are treated differently. There are other examples over SE, which often have their own issues and aren't well organised and get worse with time
@Mithrandir24601 This is exactly the solution I am advocating. I think it is clear from this post that it's not violating any rules and performs the purpose it's supposed to well
Well, unless there is a prescribed way to handle these sorts of things, this seems like an ideological dispute more than anything. In lieu of any such prescription, I think the most practical option must be taken on a case by case basis, surely?
@heather Ah, no - $T_2$ is the dephasing(?) time of a qubit (it's been a while since I've looked at this so might have gotten the type of error wrong), $T_2^*$ is related but slightly different
Recently, there was a meta post called Jobs in Quantum Computing. The mods are interested in this (and the post got a few upvotes), and we wonder if you guys are too. To get some ideas for the community, we talked to the community mods and got two options:
A meta post, where companies/researche...
@heather $T_2$ is the time taken for 'the decoherence in that direction to occur' ('s used as that sentence doesn't really make sense, but hopefully gets the gist across)