@glS Sorry for not getting back to you on this, but I have a different idea - instead of (practically impossible to undo) synonymising two tags, I can simply merge the tags so that everything that was previously operator-sum now becomes kraus-representation (I'm hesitant to make synonyms without some meta discussion beforehand, or if it's necessary, while this is simple to either synonymise or undo)
@glS In practical terms of what questions we have, quantum-operation has questions about specific unitary operations, so while these are technically Kraus operators, describing them as such is overcomplicating it, to my mind
So I think, for the latter, the solution would be to go through all the quantum-operation questions and properly re-tag, then synonymise or something
(... Welp, that's my job, isn't it?)
Ahh, no, of course, if everything is currently tagged as operator-sum, it's easy to undo a synonymisation of them
@glS In this case it's not, but generally, yeah, the only way I know of would be to go through every single one of the posts and see what it was originally tagged as
@Mithrandir24601 I'm not thinking as the quantum-operation matter as related to kraus-representation. My questions is simply the relation between quantum-operation and quantum-channel. The difference would be that quantum-channel refers to CPTP maps, while quantum-operation to more general CP maps
we can also have a meta discussion of course, just there are not many people on meta so I'm not sure we'd get many more opinions anyway
@Mithrandir24601 that's true, but I don't have a big problem with tagging questions about gates and unitary operations as quantum-operation. My beef is that it's hard to enforce, and sometimes tell, the difference between questions asking specifically about CPTP maps and those asking about more general maps. We might as well just have a tag for general quantum-operations, which refers more to the formalism and techniques associated
anyway, let's fix it now and then we'll slowly deal with the mistagged questions in time
better fixed now than later
how do you feel about For questions related to completely positive (CP) maps. Use both for quantum channels (trace-preserving CP maps) and more general CP maps. as new excerpt?
maybe For questions about completely positive (CP) linear maps between quantum states. Can also be used for trace-preserving CP maps (quantum channels). is a bit better
@glS So, merging just replaces all current instances of one tag with another, but doesn't change its use in the future. If we want to change how something is used permanently, it needs to be synomynised