Quantum Computing for Dummies

Chillers writes "There seems to be a need for an undergraduate text on Quantum Computing. I've had a go at writing one, but in my opinion, it still needs work. The book is available available online (pdf) and any comments would be greatly appreciated."

Comments

Re:Do I get college credit....

[erichill]

Thorough indeed.

I was looking at the math section and glad to find an introduction to unitarity, but I wonder if someone who needs an introduction to complex numbers, polynomials, matrices, etc., is going to be able to absorb quantum mechanics in the same read. However, since my mathematical background only covers the first n, where n < page_count, pages of that chapter, it's probably a good call not to make assumptions and start from the beginning. Besides many of us with mathematical backgrounds, like me, get rusty after years of work which doesn't call for much math.

I heartily agree with other posts that this stuff looks like good wikipaedia fodder, probably across many entries. I also wonder if some of this might be able to contribute to Eric Weisstein's sites. He still has quite a few entries that can be added to.

comments...

[s/nemisis]

ok well i have to admit that i haven't read the entire text, but here is what i've noticed so far. you seem to be a little light on information across the entire book. lets take an example. You discuss how fo fine sin(x) in 3.4.1 which is fine, i would not have, its a bit trivial, but then when you were discussing complex numbers in 3.6, you didn't discuss the rather troublesome third quadrant, and show z* and e^i(pi) in like one line, right after a shaded box at the bottom of the page, asking for students to read over it without absorbing them. also there are no self test questions, no example questions, nothing. this book needs work, but is an awesome start. now you need to work on getting the subtle details that students will miss, get them either in questions, examples, or complete explanation.

that's just how i feel though,
yel02

Re:comments...

[s/nemisis]

i read further and chapters 4 to 6 were very good giving history and lots of good information. and above i stated no example questions, that wasn't fully correct there are example questions, i meant more like .... review questions (question with answer but you have to arrive at it yourself). or like self test questions. I would like to see some complex or moderate questions placed in that test if you understand the concepts. i further didn't see shrodingers eq explicitly written. i didn't see probability densaties and potential barriers. they may not be important to understanding concepts, but could be if you decide to try to build one. like say you want to trap two particals and entangle them, and confine them. you need to know about potential barriers. ok i'm just babbeling now. but great work..

Wikibooks

[FleaPlus]

There's actually a Wikipedia-related project called Wikibooks, dedicated to using the wiki process to collaboratively create textbooks. I think the OP's work would be an excellent contribution to this project.

Re:Wikibooks

[Teancum]

I've actually written some stuff on Wikibooks. A book like this would be a huge win for Wikibooks, and I want to add my voice to suggest this approach.

If not that, then at least look at Light and Matter by Benjamin Crowell This is an excellent undergraduate Physics textbook that is released under the GFDL. At the time he created the textbook, Wikibooks wasn't available, so he created his own infrastructure to get it going. Mr. Crowell is very approachable as well. If the author of this Quantum Computing textbook wants to go it alone, at least register this book with Crowell's free book registry and review guide.

I am not so sure that /. is the best forum for something like this, due to the fact that it takes some time to grok this book, and unfortunately is a little above the heads of far too many /. readers. In addition, the nitpicking that needs to be done to get something like this going should at least be done chapter by chapter.

For example, in Chapter One there is an incorrect remark about Gordon Moore's Law. He originally proposed a doubling every year, then suggested in a subsequent talk it would slow to double chip density (and much else) every two years. Some biographers and industry journalists were the ones that split the difference and made it 18 months. It is stuff like this that in a textbook situation can help to prepetuate misinformation, not to mention how this can open a can of worms if you are not careful, even though the discussion of Moore's Law is appropriate for the subject matter.

not a review, but some thoughts

[SurG]

I have my doubts about this book. I just can't quite figure out what is the target audience here. First 100 pages or so (which is almost half) are dedicated to overview of elementary math and physics. I would certainly agree that it is necessary to reiterate through some fundametals like Turing Machine, but one that is unfamiliar with simlpe basics like eigenvalues or complex numbers should probably stay away from not obvious topics like quantum computing.

I know you this issue is addressed in the introduction, even more, it is kind of the point of the book, however, I have serious doubts about how well it is going to work out. People who are so unfamiliar with basic math, even after becoming somewhat familiar with it after first chapters of the book, probably still are not going to be able to apply that math or even comprehend chapters, in which that math is used. The book is pretty much iterating through about two years of full-time studies of student majoring in physics, so I don't think there are so many people who are able to soak that information up quickly and then be able to use that knowledge. If one wants to write Hamiltonians, he must know linear algebra, complex numbers, etc. There is no way around it.

Let me illustrate what I mean. There is, for example, conservation of energy, which is quite clear and intuitive concept that can be grasped by any high school student. Quite a lot of things can be explained or illustrated by applying it and it will still be easy to understand. However, if one would attempt to go deeper and try to approach teaching it from the invariant principles, that's going to bring quite a lot of complicated things with it, including math (symmetry, Hamiltonians, 3j symbols, you name it). Not only high school students, but majority of undergrads will be simply overwhelmed and confused, not educated.

The way I see it there are probably only two choices. One is to assume certain knowledge possessed by reader. However, the idea of the book is quite opposite. That pretty much leaves the author with second option, which is qualitative, conceptual discussion with possible references to more detailed, quantative analysis sources. Unfortunately, that is outstandingly hard task. Book like that would be terrific and would probably boost the interest for the field from a lot of students (GEB, anyone?)

I certainly appreciate the effort though. As soon as the never-ending crunch-time at work is over, I will try to read the book and provide some more feedback (of somewhat dubious value).