User talk:RobinK

I have marked you as a reviewer

I have added the "reviewers" property to your user account. This property is related to the Pending changes system that is currently being tried. This system loosens page protection by allowing anonymous users to make "pending" changes which don't become "live" until they're "reviewed". However, logged-in users always see the very latest version of each page with no delay. A good explanation of the system is given in this image. The system is only being used for pages that would otherwise be protected from editing.

If there are "pending" (unreviewed) edits for a page, they will be apparent in a page's history screen; you do not have to go looking for them. There is, however, a list of all articles with changes awaiting review at Special:OldReviewedPages. Because there are so few pages in the trial so far, the latter list is almost always empty. The list of all pages in the pending review system is at Special:StablePages.

To use the system, you can simply edit the page as you normally would, but you should also mark the latest revision as "reviewed" if you have looked at it to ensure it isn't problematic. Edits should generally be accepted if you wouldn't undo them in normal editing: they don't have obvious vandalism, personal attacks, etc. If an edit is problematic, you can fix it by editing or undoing it, just like normal. You are permitted to mark your own changes as reviewed.

The "reviewers" property does not obligate you to do any additional work, and if you like you can simply ignore it. The expectation is that many users will have this property, so that they can review pending revisions in the course of normal editing. However, if you explicitly want to decline the "reviewer" property, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC) — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. --Robin (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Quantum phase estimation algorithm

H Robin. Thanks for having a go at improving this article. However in doing so you have inadvertantly reverted some of my encyclopedic tone edits. Please restore these if you can in order to avoid the use of personal pronouns such as you and we and phrases that could be considered to be the opinion of the author: ( {{cn}} tags). Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 04:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I got rid of the "we" in the lead. I did not remove any of your {{cn}} tags, only a {{whom}} tag, because the previous line proves the assertion. --Robin (talk) 04:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Decision Problem.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Decision Problem.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. The Haz _talk 04:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Simon's algorithm

We have a random oracle relative to which BPP and BQP are separated. This is an improvement over the Deutsch-Jozsa algorithm separating P from EQP. The oracle needs to be quantum and nondecohering.

I think what this is saying is that given a quantum oracle (running in BQP time?), the classic algorithm can't solve the problem as efficiently as quantum algorithm. It's a stronger example of the power of QC than the Deutsch-Jozsa algorithm. I don't quite understand the sentence either, but if you have another idea about how to capture this concept, it would be helpful. I don't know enough about quantum complexity to craft a sentence myself. Skippydo (talk) 14:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The first sentence is vague, but a fairly common interpretation of it would be that there is a random oracle separation between BQP and BPP. This is not known to be true, and conjectured to be false. The second sentence is OK, so I didn't remove it -- although I'll try to reword it to make it clearer. The last one about the oracle being quantum and decohering makes very little sense to me. If it just means that the oracle has to allow the quantum computer to make queries in quantum superposition, then that's part of the definition of what it means to give BQP oracle access. --Robin (talk) 15:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation and the edits. You've been very helpful. Skippydo (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)