Thanks for your comments. Thanks also for finding that error.
Yeah - it's hard to know where to 'stop' (or start for that matter) when explaining QC algs. Shor's and Grover's in particular could do with a bit of work. Anyway, thanks again.
Thanks for your thoughts, here are some responses:
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.
There seems to be 2 distinct groups here - the physicists and the computer scientists. In my experience there are individuals from both groups that would like to know about QC. The physicists have a distinct advantage over the computer scientists as they generally have the math and the physics to quite easily break through that intellectual barrier which separates most of us from understanding quantum parallelism.
The computer scientists on the other hand are stuffed! I come from the latter group. Having done an undergraduate degree in Com Sci (some time ago now) I had some of the math (some linear algebra - NOT complex vector spaces), and a little physics (with only Pop-Sci and self taught QM). But I'd forgotten most of this stuff anyway! So I wrote down everything as I learnt, or revised it - basically starting right from the start. I then attempted to also fill in the 'Com Sci' gaps so that there was no bias toward my group.
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?)
Agreed, the second option is the holy grail - what we should be aiming for. I don't think that's been achieved with my work, but it's what I want us to achieve. So the text that been presented is more of a 'rough draft' or prototype for a lay-oriented uber text.
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).
Likewise, it's hard to find the time to work on the next version (work issues also). Anyhow, thanks for your comments.
p.s. I should add that I didn't do it all myself, on my own steam as I may have implied. Brain Lederer helped me with almost every aspect of it - he has a PHD in QM and is an expert in information theory - one of the lucky members of both groups.
We have a subsidised canteen at work, where you can get almost everything for around 2-4 bucks. You can get fish, burgers, salad, pies, pastries, etc. all manner of culinary delights! The food is not great, but it's more than acceptable. It's kind of like the standard you'd get at an independently owned burger store, or a little sandwich store. Anyway, nobody praises the food - all I hear is complaints about how it is crap. People forget (or ignore) that they only paid $2 for their beef stroganoff.
It's the same with the internet, we get all this stuff for free we forget (or ignore) that someone put in maybe 6 months of solid work to write that document or free piece of software.
Having said that, I do enjoy reading a well constructed, witty insult that's directed at me - as it requires real effort. So flame away people.
Well it's not my own server and the HTMLized version looks lame. Initially I would have said that you were lame, but on reflection the comment about TCP/IP and natural selection is pretty funny.
I like your link tho' - this text looks fantasic. Sigh... Now I have to read 274 pages! The similarity is a good thing. There is a need for a book like this as an introductory text. It seems that various people's work is covering pretty much the same ground, in fact this is the 2nd! book I've seen that is remarkably similar. Does this mean that people are getting it right in terms of informative books on QC for the lay audience?
I agree again. A textbook needs review questions. This I'd like to do, the trouble is that the answers need to be provided! In an email from Michael Nielsen (of QC and QI fame) he stated that he is bombarded with requests for answers to the review questions in his book (QC and QI). Coming up with questions, and answers is hard. It's time consuming and someone needs to check them thoroughly (so I'd need help). I'm sure there must be some mistakes in the grey boxes in the current text.
As for your other point, yeah, stuff like Shroedinger's equation is missing. But it needs calculus... imagine how large chapter 3 would have to become.
Agreed - rather than leaving out some of the easier parts of chapter 3 (as some people have suggested), more should go in. It was hard to know where to stop with stuff like complex numbers. It seems to me that the coverage of basics is still a bit superficial.
My main incentive for doing this was that it hadn't (from what I'd seen) been done before. Coming from a Com Sci background myself I find it useful, even now, to have the elementary math close at hand to use as a reference.
Good idea - I thought I'd let my fellow slashdotters have a look first and give me some comments before releasing it to a wider audience. It's hard to get people to actually proof read something like this, and I knew (hoped) that it'd get slammed constructively if I put it on/. first.
So after scraping up the shards of my shattered ego I can fix all the issues and with help (hopefully) release v1.1 to something like Wiki.
Thanks, my math was a little rusty too and I had to revise. The idea was to have a 'self contained' volume, for people who don't like getting off the couch to consult other texts. Obviously it still needs work, this first attempt is more of a 'framework'.
As for wikipaedia the entries on QC could do with a little 'dumbing down'.
Thanks, the chapter on Info. Theory needs work. I've heard some recent work has been done with quantum entropy which would suggest that von Neumann (and von Neumann entropy) is/was at least partially wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for your comments. Thanks also for finding that error.
Yeah - it's hard to know where to 'stop' (or start for that matter) when explaining QC algs. Shor's and Grover's in particular could do with a bit of work. Anyway, thanks again.
p.s. I should add that I didn't do it all myself, on my own steam as I may have implied. Brain Lederer helped me with almost every aspect of it - he has a PHD in QM and is an expert in information theory - one of the lucky members of both groups.
Why thanks very much,
We have a subsidised canteen at work, where you can get almost everything for around 2-4 bucks. You can get fish, burgers, salad, pies, pastries, etc. all manner of culinary delights! The food is not great, but it's more than acceptable. It's kind of like the standard you'd get at an independently owned burger store, or a little sandwich store. Anyway, nobody praises the food - all I hear is complaints about how it is crap. People forget (or ignore) that they only paid $2 for their beef stroganoff.
It's the same with the internet, we get all this stuff for free we forget (or ignore) that someone put in maybe 6 months of solid work to write that document or free piece of software.
Having said that, I do enjoy reading a well constructed, witty insult that's directed at me - as it requires real effort. So flame away people.
Thanks also for your comments on chapter 1.
Well it's not my own server and the HTMLized version looks lame. Initially I would have said that you were lame, but on reflection the comment about TCP/IP and natural selection is pretty funny.
Nah - no rip off.
I like your link tho' - this text looks fantasic. Sigh... Now I have to read 274 pages! The similarity is a good thing. There is a need for a book like this as an introductory text. It seems that various people's work is covering pretty much the same ground, in fact this is the 2nd! book I've seen that is remarkably similar. Does this mean that people are getting it right in terms of informative books on QC for the lay audience?
I agree again. A textbook needs review questions. This I'd like to do, the trouble is that the answers need to be provided! In an email from Michael Nielsen (of QC and QI fame) he stated that he is bombarded with requests for answers to the review questions in his book (QC and QI). Coming up with questions, and answers is hard. It's time consuming and someone needs to check them thoroughly (so I'd need help). I'm sure there must be some mistakes in the grey boxes in the current text.
As for your other point, yeah, stuff like Shroedinger's equation is missing. But it needs calculus... imagine how large chapter 3 would have to become.
Agreed - rather than leaving out some of the easier parts of chapter 3 (as some people have suggested), more should go in. It was hard to know where to stop with stuff like complex numbers. It seems to me that the coverage of basics is still a bit superficial.
My main incentive for doing this was that it hadn't (from what I'd seen) been done before. Coming from a Com Sci background myself I find it useful, even now, to have the elementary math close at hand to use as a reference.
Awesome! You found an error. Thanks bud, i'll fix that asap.
Thanks, I have not tried google groups yet but it is available @
QC4Dummies
This is a nice little group whose members have been very helpful.
Good idea - I thought I'd let my fellow slashdotters have a look first and give me some comments before releasing it to a wider audience. It's hard to get people to actually proof read something like this, and I knew (hoped) that it'd get slammed constructively if I put it on /. first.
So after scraping up the shards of my shattered ego I can fix all the issues and with help (hopefully) release v1.1 to something like Wiki.
Thanks, my math was a little rusty too and I had to revise. The idea was to have a 'self contained' volume, for people who don't like getting off the couch to consult other texts. Obviously it still needs work, this first attempt is more of a 'framework'.
As for wikipaedia the entries on QC could do with a little 'dumbing down'.
Thanks, the chapter on Info. Theory needs work. I've heard some recent work has been done with quantum entropy which would suggest that von Neumann (and von Neumann entropy) is/was at least partially wrong.
hehe, sure - any handles, pseudonyms, nics, etc. are acceptible. Anything but 'Anonymous Coward'.
Thanks for your concern, but SwiftDSL are not reporting any problems (I called them to make sure there would be no bandwidth problems).
Indeed, the result is less than acceptable. Thanks.
Thanks, It's not hosted by me personally. The SwiftDSL servers themselves are copping the hits. My DSL link is not affected.
Nah dude - you got it wrong, it's a site for COOL people. It looks like you are on the wrong site, sorry. :)