Talk:Superdense coding

Computer science C‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Computer scienceTemplate:WikiProject Computer scienceComputer science

C

This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Things you can help WikiProject Computer science with:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests :
- Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Computer science, computing, and Internet
Cleanup :
- Computer science articles needing attention
- Computer science articles needing expert attention
Copyedit :
- Computing
Expand :
- Computer science
Infobox :
- Computer science articles without infoboxes
Maintain :
- Timeline of computing 2020–present
Photo :
- Find pictures for the biographies of computer scientists (see List of computer scientists)
- Computing articles needing images
Stubs :
- Computer science stubs
Unreferenced :
- WikiProject Computer science/Unreferenced BLPs
Project-related :
- Tag all relevant articles in Category:Computer science and sub-categories with {{WikiProject Computer science}}

"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)[reply]

I agree, merge 'em. —Keenan Pepper 02:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The current version of the diagram is correct. --Robin (talk) 23:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"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".