« first day (925 days earlier)      last day (1302 days later) » 

glS
glS
9:37 AM
@Mithrandir24601 so.. may I ask your opinion on the following: don't you think we should have a quantum-computing tag?
 
Mithrandir24601
Mithrandir24601
10:34 AM
@glS Nope, not unless there's a very specific way you'd think it would be used...
(just like Physics SE not having a physics tag)
 
glS
glS
11:22 AM
@Mithrandir24601 well, this connects with the usual scope discussions I guess, but there is a well-defined subset of questions that are (or are not) about quantum computing. E.g. quantumcomputing.stackexchange.com/q/6198/55 and similar
though I agree having a tag named like the site is a bit weird
maybe something like quantum-computers would fit more? idk
 
Mithrandir24601
Mithrandir24601
@glS We tried that in the past and that specific tag didn't work :P
 
glS
glS
@Mithrandir24601 uhm, I don't remember that. In what way it didn't work?
 
Mithrandir24601
Mithrandir24601
But yeah, some kind of tag for those questions would be good, if there's one that works
 
glS
glS
ah, I guess you refer to this discussion
8
A: Why is there a <quantum-computer> tag?

Mithrandir24601Looking at the description of the quantum-computer tag, it's currently described as: For questions about computers that run on a quantum architecture; the machines themselves, not just any computing that could take place on one. Personally, I find this a reasonable start and think that que...

 
Mithrandir24601
Mithrandir24601
@glS Yep, that's the one
 
glS
glS
11:26 AM
@Mithrandir24601 I don't see discussion on actually going forward with removing it though. You seemed to be in favour of keeping it
 
Mithrandir24601
Mithrandir24601
It was right at the start of the site and I remember the problem just getting really bad - people would use the quantum-computer tag for a huge proportion of the questions on the site to the point where the tag really just became meaningless
@glS I was... but things got out of hand :/
I'd still like such a tag, to be honest, but I don't see how we could keep it under control
@glS Ah, it's been synonymised to physical-realization
 
glS
glS
yea I can see that happening. Part of it can be dealt with with an appropriate excerpt, but I guess many users won't actually read that. It is also true that it would fit many questions.

About "keeping it under control"... to be honest, I'm under the impression that most questions need to be retagged manually anyway (I'm pretty sure I needed to put [tag:programming] on most of the questions that currently have it), so I don't see that as that much of a problem
then again, for questions like quantumcomputing.stackexchange.com/q/6198/55 we end up using classical-computing pretty much only because it's the closest equivalent to the missing tag
 
Mithrandir24601
Mithrandir24601
Given that the oldest question isn't even tagged correctly, yeah, more tag curation would be nice...
Oops...
 
glS
glS
I mean, tags don't see that bad on that one
66
Q: Can a Turing machine simulate a quantum computer?

user7I know that a Turing machine1 can theoretically simulate "anything", but I don't know whether it could simulate something as fundamentally different as a quantum-based computer. Are there any attempts to do this, or has anybody proved it possible/not possible? I've googled around, but I'm not a...

simulation quantum-turing-machine computability-theory
 
Mithrandir24601
Mithrandir24601
quantum-turing-machine is a bit misleading
(given the question's really asking about a classical Turing machine)
 
glS
glS
11:38 AM
@Mithrandir24601 ah, that's true. Also computability-theory is probably unnecessary
I'd leave complexity-theory and simulation and remove the rest
 
Mithrandir24601
Mithrandir24601
@glS As far as 'Church-Turing' thesis goes, I think it's technically the right tag
 
glS
glS
maybe quantum-advantage as well
ok but I mean, "computability theory" is pretty similar to "complexity theory". Sure they are different subjects, but I can't see the distinction as very useful in the context of this site
anyway, it doesn't hurt so let's keep it. Removed quantum-turing and let's call it a day? More generally about tagging, I mostly go through all new questions from email newsletters. Old questions I retag only when I stumble upon them
 
Mithrandir24601
Mithrandir24601
Yeah, I'm saying that it's a technical point because of how the Church-Turing thesis is referring to efficiency of (classical) Turing machines. It's odd that we have that as the tag description though... :/
> For questions on Church-Turing thesis
Yeah, that description needs re-doing... :sigh:
 
glS
glS
@Mithrandir24601 ah I see, good point. I guess that's what happens when you try too hard to have excerpt for all tags in a short amount of time?
looking through the questions tagged with it though, I reiterate my point that the tag seems superfluous
 
Mithrandir24601
Mithrandir24601
That's what happens when people think that copying Wiki is an OK thing to do for tag excerpts
I'm almost tempted to re-name the tag to church-turing and remove it from most of the questions it's currently on
 
glS
glS
12:00 PM
@Mithrandir24601 that's what I was thinking as well. Though maybe I'd go with church-turing-thesis instead
 

« first day (925 days earlier)      last day (1302 days later) »