Content deleted Content added
→Article is confusing: Reply Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit Reply |
→Article is confusing: Reply |
||
Line 64:
::@[[User:Qq8|Qq8]] I changed it because "classical algorithm" just sounds like a more direct term to me, and it's the standard I've always seen people use. That said, you might be absolutely right that different terminology is used in different fields. Could you point to modern cs references (presumably discussing quantum algorithms) using the "non-quantum algorithm" terminology? [[User:Luca Innocenti|Luca]] ([[User talk:Luca Innocenti|talk]]) 06:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Luca Innocenti|Luca Innocenti]] I am perfectly aware of the term in the field. However, the Wikipedia is mostly for non-scientists, and the text should be accessible to ordinary people. "Classical algorithms" is confusing. "Non-quantum algorithms" seems clear. I can find some papers that use it, but that's kind of irrelevant, TBH. [[User:Qq8|Qq8]] ([[User talk:Qq8|talk]]) 15:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Qq8|Qq8]] I see. That's a legitimate concern. If that's the point, we could have it both ways and write it as "classical (that is, non-quantum) algorithms"? Honestly though, pretty much all other wikipedia pages discussing quantum algorithms (or at least all I found) use the "classical X" terminology anyway. I agree this page has problems; I'd say it's quite inaccessible/hard to parse for experts, let alone for non-scientists. But I'm not convinced this particular terminology is what makes it inaccessible to a non-scientist. [[User:Luca Innocenti|Luca]] ([[User talk:Luca Innocenti|talk]]) 20:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
== Shor NMR ==
| |||