Should the [quantum-computing-models] tag be used in this question?

I noticed that in this question the OP reverted back to putting in the , after I edited it out.

As far as I understand it is for questions regarding different "theoretical models" of quantum computers like "topological", "adiabatic", "unitary-circuit", etc. That question however doesn't seem to ask about any specific quantum computing model(s) but a general question asking "Can quantum computers handle big data?" So, should that tag be used on that question, or not?

IMO: no.

Theoretical Models are unrelated to how data can be stored (which is the question in the question in question1, If I understood it correctly).

Computing models is slightly ambiguous, as I see it. Does it mean a Computational Model? a Model of Computation? The tag is ambiguous regardless of the question, which is a different matter.

Either way, it fits neither the title of the question nor the question sentence in the post, both of which relate to storage and memory in quantum computing (not necessarily quantum computers).

For these reasons, I think the tag doesn't fit.

1 I did that on purpose.

As the question's author, yes.

The main reason is that 'data' is not something that can be ignored in theoretical models in the classical world if there is a lot of it. When dealing with 'big' data, i.e. data that never fits in main memory, a different model than the RAM model (which states: data access is $O(1)$, don't worry about it) is used, that takes limited space of the RAM and swapping it with parts on disk into account.

Hence, if quantum computing is to handle 'big' data, the data must be part of the model. Perhaps quantum computing isn't far enough to model data access as such, but that is a property of answers, not of the question.

So, I very much intend to hear about models as well as their implementations. If you think these are two questions, then I might split them. But for the question as stated, the tag is relevant.

I don't think that the fact I don't single out any model means the tag is inapplicable, see Which theoretical models for quantum computing are polynomial-time equivalent? for another question with the tag that doesn't single out a specific model either.

• But then the question becomes ambiguous. Is it about how q-computers can hold data, regardless of its amount, or about how to model, quantum state-wise, big data? Apr 2, 2018 at 8:55
• My question is how to model and implement data such that massive amounts of data can be handled efficiently by quantum computers. IMO, the data modeling and implementation cannot be done seperately, hence I ask it in one question. But perhaps two would be better. Apr 2, 2018 at 8:56
• then your question is written in a way that doesn't show what you are really asking. If you edit it, you invalidate answers (admittedly, my answer; but it's a bad habit to have) Apr 2, 2018 at 8:57
• That few understood what I was asking has become clear. Do you have any suggestion how to 'split up' the question such that there are two clear ones? Or perhaps the interpretation of the answer on the first? Then I can make the second more clear on what I want. Apr 2, 2018 at 8:58
• If I had a suggestion, I would ask them myself :). Sorry, but I don't know the matter well enough to give a useful suggestion. Apr 2, 2018 at 9:02
• @ItamarG3 No, I mean, you made this answer quantumcomputing.stackexchange.com/a/1259 . Could you briefly state what question you thought you were answering there? Then I'll update the answer to match that one better and ask a new question. Apr 2, 2018 at 9:04
• I see your point to a degree, but I think that the terms ‘models’ in QC refers to something at a lower level. We need to develop higher level use cases and get a better idea of what quantum RAMs would work like before we can really think of models at that level. So I agree that the tag should be used in line with current usage, and not on a question like this. Apr 14, 2018 at 19:22