Conversation
SimonSekavcnik
left a comment
SimonSekavcnik
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We agree with most of your comments and suggestions. We had some comments with the documentation updates that you propose as well as with the inheritance of the CompositeEnvelope.
| \hat{\sigma_y} = \begin{bmatrix} | ||
| 0 & -i \\ | ||
| i & 0 | ||
| 0 & -Id \\ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In this case i represents imaginary number, not identity matrix.
| .. math:: | ||
|
|
||
| \hat{S} = \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & i \end{bmatrix} | ||
| \hat{S} = \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & Id \end{bmatrix} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In this case i also represents imaginary number.
| Constructs T (:math:`\hat T`) operator | ||
| .. math:: | ||
| \hat{T} = \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & e^{i \pi/4} \end{bmatrix} | ||
| \hat{T} = \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & e^{Id \pi/4} \end{bmatrix} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Again, i represents imaginary number.
| .. math:: | ||
|
|
||
| \hat{SX} = \frac{1}{2} \begin{bmatrix} 1+i & 1-i \\ 1-i & 1+i \end{bmatrix} | ||
| \hat{SX} = \frac{1}{2} \begin{bmatrix} 1+Id & 1-Id \\ 1-Id & 1+Id \end{bmatrix} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Again, i represents imaginary number.
| \cos\left(\frac{\theta}{2}\right) & -i\sin\left(\frac{\theta}{2}\right) \\ | ||
| -i\sin\left(\frac{\theta}{2}\right) & \cos\left(\frac{\theta}{2}\right) | ||
| \cos\left(\frac{\theta}{2}\right) & -Id\sin\left(\frac{\theta}{2}\right) \\ | ||
| -Id\sin\left(\frac{\theta}{2}\right) & \cos\left(\frac{\theta}{2}\right) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Again, i represents imaginary number.
| e^{-i\frac{\theta}{2}} & 0 \\ | ||
| 0 & e^{i\frac{\theta}{2}} | ||
| e^{-Id\frac{\theta}{2}} & 0 \\ | ||
| 0 & e^{Id\frac{\theta}{2}} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Again, i represents imaginary number.
| ][0] | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| # FIXME: Inherit from Envelope to limit code duplication ? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
CompositeEnvelope has a fundamentally different way of handling states. It does expose similar API, but it handles the states differently. Basically CompositeEnvelope passes the 'commands' to the correct ProductSpace, thus I think that we cannot productively inherit the functionality from the Envelope.
2 participants
Here are some preliminary comments / slight reformatting in the context of the JOSS review:
Let me know if you have any questions of if I can help in any way :)