# The tags [simulations] and [quantum-simulations] - should they be merged?

has only one question and no description, but the question would fit with which has a description and many questions. Should be marked a synonym of ?

Yes, these tags should be synonymized.

The tags seem to cover the exact same thing, and one is definitely more widely used and self-explanatory than the other.

• But wouldn't "quantum simulation" and "classical simulation" be extremely different concepts, and wouldn't it make sense to have separate tags for either of them? – Norbert Schuch Aug 2 '18 at 21:40
• @NorbertSchuch perhaps but as it stands simulation is used for quantum simulations. – heather Aug 2 '18 at 21:41
• What has been used for classical simulations? Nothing? In either case, I feel that synonimizing "simulation" with "quantum-simulation" is kind of symmetry breaking - I feel there should be tags for classical & quantum simulation, and people choose whatever is better (since they should be offered both when typing "simulation") – Norbert Schuch Aug 2 '18 at 22:54
• @NorbertSchuch would you mind posting an answer with that then? That would require some retagging, I think. – heather Aug 2 '18 at 23:06
• I agree that we should have tags for both: many existing questions don't fit very well with quantum-simulation. Maybe quantum-simulation and classical-simulation? I don't really like classical-simulation as a term in this context, but it could avoid endless mistagging – glS Aug 3 '18 at 11:14

I think we should have two different tags, one for quantum simulation in the sense of using a quantum system to simulate another one, and the other for the problem of simulating quantum systems with classical devices.

For example, this and this questions are about simulation but not about quantum simulation, while this and this are about quantum simulation (though the last one is more specifically about hamiltonian simulation).

However, I do agree that having and would be source of endless confusion and mistagging.

Perhaps we could have and , and make simulation as synonym for classical-simulation? The rationale about synonymizing simulation this way is that I would expect people not knowing the difference to be more likely asking about classical-simulation.