Talk:Superdense coding: Difference between revisions
Update Quantum Information Science and Engineering assignment details |
Update Quantum Information Science and Engineering assignment details |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{WikiProject Computer science |class=C |importance=high}} |
{{WikiProject Computer science |class=C |importance=high}} |
||
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Tulane_University/Quantum_Information_Science_and_Engineering_(Fall_2018) | assignments = [[User:Djobes|Djobes]] }} |
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Tulane_University/Quantum_Information_Science_and_Engineering_(Fall_2018) | assignments = [[User:Djobes|Djobes]], [[User:Baileyruesch|Baileyruesch]] }} |
||
"Quantum dense coding" and "Superdense coding" mean the same thing. The two articles should be merged asa proposed. [[User:Cryptonaut|Cryptonaut]] 02:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC) |
"Quantum dense coding" and "Superdense coding" mean the same thing. The two articles should be merged asa proposed. [[User:Cryptonaut|Cryptonaut]] 02:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:13, 18 October 2018
Computer science C‑class High‑importance | |||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Djobes, Baileyruesch (article contribs).
"Quantum dense coding" and "Superdense coding" mean the same thing. The two articles should be merged asa proposed. Cryptonaut 02:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- I agree, merge 'em. —Keenan Pepper 02:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Correction for diagram.
A IP user has requested that the diagram on this page the modified. They wrote: "Please flip b_1 and b_2 on sender's side! Thanks!" into the figure caption. I am moving the request here where it should be. I would make the change myself, but I'm not sure that it's actually correct or not. —♫CheChe♫ talk 15:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh, also, I'm thinking of making a new SVG version of the diagram. If anyone can confirm that the requested change is correct, I would be happy to get on that. —♫CheChe♫ talk 15:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- The current version of the diagram is correct. --Robin (talk) 23:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
"Why"
The esteemed editor who keeps pondering "why" has apparently been too kind to point out both the transformations and their results are wrong. So much for "Details".