Hot answers tagged

10

There's really no need. Just look at the tags and add excerpts wherever you see fit or whenever you need a tag that doesn't have an excerpt. Creating a tag list here and transferring it to another list when it's pending and tracking what is done and what's not adds a layer of unnecessary management that could be better spent actually doing the work. It's ...


8

Looking at the description of the quantum-computer tag, it's currently described as: For questions about computers that run on a quantum architecture; the machines themselves, not just any computing that could take place on one. Personally, I find this a reasonable start and think that questions tagged quantum-computer should be about either the ...


8

Similar to the qubit, the qutrit is the unit of quantum information in 3-level quantum systems. This is analogous to the unit of classical information trit of ternary computers. The term "qudit" (quantum digit) denotes the unit of quantum information in d-level quantum systems (normally 3 or more). Source: Variations of the qubit


7

I personally think these questions should be off-topic. Career advice is inherently strongly dependent on the specific situation at hand, and I struggle to see why these kinds of questions should be asked here, rather than to a senior researcher/professor/advisor that is closer to the person and likely more familiar with the specifics of the situation (and ...


6

Keep them both as separate tags While heavily related and often talked about together, they are slightly different things: Quantum Error Correction (QEC) is using a 'code' (e.g. Shor code or Stabiliser code) to mitigate errors that occur when performing operations on a processor. However, if a system has a lot of noise, QEC may not work well enough to ...


6

Okay, so here are my thoughts. In particular, I did an edit like this, removing the tag quantum-mythology, so I'll explain my perspective. Tags like these aren't good tags. I already wrote an answer on this, so I won't elaborate. If a (relatively) high-rep user believes the tag unnecessary, they can delete quite easily. If it becomes controversial, it is ...


5

Where a community meta-tag runs into problems is in going against a general moratorium against soliciting users on these sites. It's easy to tell yourself this will only be used to ask about (or let users know about) cool activities they want — but when folks start to imitate what they see, it becomes very difficult to deny that next person from doing ...


5

I think these tags should be kept. In my opinion a question talking about qubits can talk about more things than just their state: how to get qubits? (on-topic? Not sure), properties of qubits required for them to work, how to store qubits (on-topic? Not sure) and of course also about their states. Whereas qubit-state is, in my opinion, only about questions ...


4

These are the top definitions I come up with when I google "metaphysics+definition": the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, identity, time, and space. abstract theory with no basis in reality So yes, I don't think that tag should exist. As a rule of thumb, avoid creating ...


4

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 ...


3

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 (...


3

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.


3

I am not entirely convinced that adding such a tag would allow to satisfactorily filter out textbook-like content. At the same time, I don't see any compelling reason to not have it, provided we stay away from any wording that might appear "judgemental", or otherwise pertaining to the intentions of the asker rather than the content of the post. If having ...


3

I don't see the need to change names here. The name scope is clear, and the tag excerpt for questions about which subjects or questions are allowed on this site makes it clear. Also, on-topic is already a synonym of scope. There is no harm in make off-topic a synonym, but I don't like the scheme with the retagging after a 'decision has been made' (by a ...


3

I'd agree with you, but here's a point to consider: tags show what is on-topic to users. If a user sees the tag programming there might be confusion as to what is on-topic. On the other hand, you are quite right that the "quantum" abbreviation is in some cases not very useful and just makes the tag name longer. There are enough exceptions that it might be ...


3

Major tag problems ("should such-and-such even be a tag?" or "is this tag appropriately defined?") should be brought to meta. Minor tag problems ("insert-stupid-tag-name-here should definitely not be a tag" or "this tag is definitely not applied correctly") should not. And how can you tell whether the problem is major or minor? By using your judgement. ...


2

I don't think it is a good idea to have that tag, as I don't think we should have such questions at all on the main site. Why not, you might ask? Well, the intention of SE as whole is, briefly: to give good answers to important questions and provide them to the world at large. I think that the main problem with such 'community requests' is that almost all ...


2

Your question is a bit unclear, but here's what I'd have to say: if you mean off-topic should be on meta, then see Discrete lizard's answer. Tags on meta shouldn't be used to alert mods or anyone to bad questions anyway, unless there is something to actually discuss. if you mean off-topic should be on main...oh the horror! Having a tag like that on main is ...


2

The tag listing is intended to show only a portion of the excerpt as allowed by space allotted (akin to the text excerpts on this 'Questions' page). To see the rest of the excerpt, you can hover over it, or click through to the tag entry to see the entire contents.


2

Done! I've added it to Openfermion to qiskit and Error during Forest openfermion installation. If there are any other questions it should be added to, if you could either suggest an edit or let me know (in the comments), that would be most helpful.


2

It could be useful to distinguish debugging questions from other types of Qiskit or Q# questions. I do doubt that many people will want to "follow" or "subscribe" to the emails for a "debugging" tag at this time, since Qiskit and Q# are still relatively new compared to other programming languages and they won't have a lot of ...


1

Observations/Retag Guidance: There's a tag information-theory that at least sounds like it's purpose is possibly what quantum-information was actually originally intended for. If you see something tagged quantum-information that should be tagged information-theory, then please re-tag as such. Progress: The quantum-information tag is in the process of being ...


1

There's currently no questions with only the quantum-information tag. This query indicates that. That doesn't mean that it's not a useful tag though. There's probably not a lot of questions with only 1 tag, in general. I will point out that the information-theory tag has only 5 questions, and surprisingly, none of them have the quantum-information tag. The ...


1

Ok, I think this discussion is over, but let me make a closing statement. First of all, I'm sorry. This whole discussion was a mess and I have at least a shared responsibility on this. Second, while I do think that I had something important to discuss, it really wasn't. This only concerned 10 questions max. Of course, I though this potentially dangerous ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible