Content deleted Content added
→Article is confusing: Reply |
→Article is confusing: Reply Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit Reply |
||
Line 65:
:::@[[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)
:::::I can agree with pretty much everything you are saying. Of course one word can't make the article clear, but one word can make it more confusing! A good test is whether there is a wiki article for "Classical algorithms" - there isn't, and probably won't be because it's not a separate concept, but rather physics jargon for non-quantum algorithms (which aren't part of physics). [[User:Qq8|Qq8]] ([[User talk:Qq8|talk]]) 21:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
== Shor NMR ==
| |||