News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on What would a very simple quantum program look like?. Parent comment

Re:What would a very simple quantum program look like? by oh_sigh on Wednesday June 14, 2017 @01:26PM (#14554315)
Imagine if the operations of boolean logic were, instead of AND is BOOL, OR is QCC(for queens college, cork), NOT is DFG(for duncan f gregory), etc

I think that would be more in line with what OP was talking about.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:What would a very simple quantum program look like? by mikeash on Wednesday June 14, 2017 @02:21PM (#14554784)
It's hard to evaluate that fairly, since I've known the other names for as long as I can remember.

How do you feel about computing distances with the Pythagorean theorem, performing a Gaussian blur, thinking about data compression in terms of Kolmogorov complexity, or generating random numbers in a Poisson distribution?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:What would a very simple quantum program look like? by oh_sigh on Wednesday June 14, 2017 @03:38PM (#14555425)
I don't really care - I was just trying to point out what I thought OP was getting at that other posts were missing. For what it's worth my opinion is that, if there is a pre-existing word which captures a lot of the meaning, then it is probably best to go for that. If there isn't, then anything is fair game.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:What would a very simple quantum program look like? by mikeash on Wednesday June 14, 2017 @05:17PM (#14556192)
That sounds reasonable to me. It seems like this is how things are already done to me. If something has an easy name, then that's used, otherwise the creator/inventor/discoverer's name is used. I don't understand it so maybe I'm missing a short term for it, but it seems like the Hadamard transform wouldn't nicely fit any existing word/phrase.
[ Parent | on HN ]