How to describe, or encode, the input vector x of Quantum Fourier Transform?
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
Firstly, I'd like to specify my goal: to know why QFT runs exponentially faster than classical FFT.
I have read many tutorials about QFT (Quantum Fourier Transform), and this tutorial somehow explains something important between classical and quantum Fourier Transform.
Inside 1, it describes that:
The quantum Fourier transform is based on essentially the same idea with the only difference that the vectors x and y are state vectors (see formula 5.2, 5.3),
However, I couldn't catch up the statement regarding "x and y are state vectors"; I get stuck at the formula 5.2 and 5.3.
I want to know how to convert the classical input vector x to the right hand side of the formula 5.2.
If this confusing problem is solved, it'll be better for me to understand the time complexity issue of QFT.
quantum-algorithms quantum-fourier-transform
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
Firstly, I'd like to specify my goal: to know why QFT runs exponentially faster than classical FFT.
I have read many tutorials about QFT (Quantum Fourier Transform), and this tutorial somehow explains something important between classical and quantum Fourier Transform.
Inside 1, it describes that:
The quantum Fourier transform is based on essentially the same idea with the only difference that the vectors x and y are state vectors (see formula 5.2, 5.3),
However, I couldn't catch up the statement regarding "x and y are state vectors"; I get stuck at the formula 5.2 and 5.3.
I want to know how to convert the classical input vector x to the right hand side of the formula 5.2.
If this confusing problem is solved, it'll be better for me to understand the time complexity issue of QFT.
quantum-algorithms quantum-fourier-transform
New contributor
2
Related: Why can the Discrete Fourier Transform be implemented efficiently as a quantum circuit?
– Blue♦
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
Firstly, I'd like to specify my goal: to know why QFT runs exponentially faster than classical FFT.
I have read many tutorials about QFT (Quantum Fourier Transform), and this tutorial somehow explains something important between classical and quantum Fourier Transform.
Inside 1, it describes that:
The quantum Fourier transform is based on essentially the same idea with the only difference that the vectors x and y are state vectors (see formula 5.2, 5.3),
However, I couldn't catch up the statement regarding "x and y are state vectors"; I get stuck at the formula 5.2 and 5.3.
I want to know how to convert the classical input vector x to the right hand side of the formula 5.2.
If this confusing problem is solved, it'll be better for me to understand the time complexity issue of QFT.
quantum-algorithms quantum-fourier-transform
New contributor
Firstly, I'd like to specify my goal: to know why QFT runs exponentially faster than classical FFT.
I have read many tutorials about QFT (Quantum Fourier Transform), and this tutorial somehow explains something important between classical and quantum Fourier Transform.
Inside 1, it describes that:
The quantum Fourier transform is based on essentially the same idea with the only difference that the vectors x and y are state vectors (see formula 5.2, 5.3),
However, I couldn't catch up the statement regarding "x and y are state vectors"; I get stuck at the formula 5.2 and 5.3.
I want to know how to convert the classical input vector x to the right hand side of the formula 5.2.
If this confusing problem is solved, it'll be better for me to understand the time complexity issue of QFT.
quantum-algorithms quantum-fourier-transform
quantum-algorithms quantum-fourier-transform
New contributor
New contributor
edited 2 days ago
Blue♦
5,60511250
5,60511250
New contributor
asked 2 days ago
user3176354
282
282
New contributor
New contributor
2
Related: Why can the Discrete Fourier Transform be implemented efficiently as a quantum circuit?
– Blue♦
2 days ago
add a comment |
2
Related: Why can the Discrete Fourier Transform be implemented efficiently as a quantum circuit?
– Blue♦
2 days ago
2
2
Related: Why can the Discrete Fourier Transform be implemented efficiently as a quantum circuit?
– Blue♦
2 days ago
Related: Why can the Discrete Fourier Transform be implemented efficiently as a quantum circuit?
– Blue♦
2 days ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
Formula 5.2 refers to an encoding we call amplitude encoding. Imagine you have a vector $x$ with components $x_i$, the components are then encoded as amplitudes of a quantum state.
This encoding is very important as a vector that has a dimension $N$, will be encoded in quantum form using about $log(N)$ qubits. This is the main reason why in many quantum algorithms using this encoding we can achieve exponential speedup in the size of the problem.
However, generally in quantum computing, you have to assume that this encoding is done using a device called quantum random access memory for loading in this form a vector. Or you are given a circuit that do the job for you.
Thank you for your answer. I'm not sure if your answer contradicts with Norbert's(the other answer). Or maybe both of you are saying the same thing but I cannot see through it..........
– user3176354
2 days ago
@user3176354 It does not. When I say "a circuit that does the job for you", a circuit is also an algorithm whose output is the state x. Formula 5.2 is typical of an amplitude encoding done by QRAM, which will create this preparation by applying a circuit for this purpose. The purpose of the QRAM will be to prepare classical data to quantum form (however we do not have an efficient implementation of such device so far).
– cnada
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
You don't convert a classical input to the r.h.s. of Eq. (5.2). The r.h.s. of Eq. (5.2) is something you get as the output of a preceding quantum computation as a quantum state, such as in Shor's algorithm. This is the only way to get an exponential speedup -- if you had to start from an exponentially big classical vector, there would be no way to solve this in polynomial time.
Thank you for your answer. But I'm still confused; according to the referenced pdf/website, the author says something between formula 5.3 and 5.4 in a way that makes want to think that we convert a classical input to the r.h.s. of Eq. (5.2). What the author says between formula 5.3 and 5.4 is " Then the action on the components of state vector x is described by 5.1 so that".
– user3176354
2 days ago
@user3176354 In the formulation you quote, there is nothing saying that this is converted to classical.
– Norbert Schuch
2 days ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
Formula 5.2 refers to an encoding we call amplitude encoding. Imagine you have a vector $x$ with components $x_i$, the components are then encoded as amplitudes of a quantum state.
This encoding is very important as a vector that has a dimension $N$, will be encoded in quantum form using about $log(N)$ qubits. This is the main reason why in many quantum algorithms using this encoding we can achieve exponential speedup in the size of the problem.
However, generally in quantum computing, you have to assume that this encoding is done using a device called quantum random access memory for loading in this form a vector. Or you are given a circuit that do the job for you.
Thank you for your answer. I'm not sure if your answer contradicts with Norbert's(the other answer). Or maybe both of you are saying the same thing but I cannot see through it..........
– user3176354
2 days ago
@user3176354 It does not. When I say "a circuit that does the job for you", a circuit is also an algorithm whose output is the state x. Formula 5.2 is typical of an amplitude encoding done by QRAM, which will create this preparation by applying a circuit for this purpose. The purpose of the QRAM will be to prepare classical data to quantum form (however we do not have an efficient implementation of such device so far).
– cnada
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
Formula 5.2 refers to an encoding we call amplitude encoding. Imagine you have a vector $x$ with components $x_i$, the components are then encoded as amplitudes of a quantum state.
This encoding is very important as a vector that has a dimension $N$, will be encoded in quantum form using about $log(N)$ qubits. This is the main reason why in many quantum algorithms using this encoding we can achieve exponential speedup in the size of the problem.
However, generally in quantum computing, you have to assume that this encoding is done using a device called quantum random access memory for loading in this form a vector. Or you are given a circuit that do the job for you.
Thank you for your answer. I'm not sure if your answer contradicts with Norbert's(the other answer). Or maybe both of you are saying the same thing but I cannot see through it..........
– user3176354
2 days ago
@user3176354 It does not. When I say "a circuit that does the job for you", a circuit is also an algorithm whose output is the state x. Formula 5.2 is typical of an amplitude encoding done by QRAM, which will create this preparation by applying a circuit for this purpose. The purpose of the QRAM will be to prepare classical data to quantum form (however we do not have an efficient implementation of such device so far).
– cnada
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
Formula 5.2 refers to an encoding we call amplitude encoding. Imagine you have a vector $x$ with components $x_i$, the components are then encoded as amplitudes of a quantum state.
This encoding is very important as a vector that has a dimension $N$, will be encoded in quantum form using about $log(N)$ qubits. This is the main reason why in many quantum algorithms using this encoding we can achieve exponential speedup in the size of the problem.
However, generally in quantum computing, you have to assume that this encoding is done using a device called quantum random access memory for loading in this form a vector. Or you are given a circuit that do the job for you.
Formula 5.2 refers to an encoding we call amplitude encoding. Imagine you have a vector $x$ with components $x_i$, the components are then encoded as amplitudes of a quantum state.
This encoding is very important as a vector that has a dimension $N$, will be encoded in quantum form using about $log(N)$ qubits. This is the main reason why in many quantum algorithms using this encoding we can achieve exponential speedup in the size of the problem.
However, generally in quantum computing, you have to assume that this encoding is done using a device called quantum random access memory for loading in this form a vector. Or you are given a circuit that do the job for you.
edited 2 days ago
answered 2 days ago
cnada
1,651211
1,651211
Thank you for your answer. I'm not sure if your answer contradicts with Norbert's(the other answer). Or maybe both of you are saying the same thing but I cannot see through it..........
– user3176354
2 days ago
@user3176354 It does not. When I say "a circuit that does the job for you", a circuit is also an algorithm whose output is the state x. Formula 5.2 is typical of an amplitude encoding done by QRAM, which will create this preparation by applying a circuit for this purpose. The purpose of the QRAM will be to prepare classical data to quantum form (however we do not have an efficient implementation of such device so far).
– cnada
2 days ago
add a comment |
Thank you for your answer. I'm not sure if your answer contradicts with Norbert's(the other answer). Or maybe both of you are saying the same thing but I cannot see through it..........
– user3176354
2 days ago
@user3176354 It does not. When I say "a circuit that does the job for you", a circuit is also an algorithm whose output is the state x. Formula 5.2 is typical of an amplitude encoding done by QRAM, which will create this preparation by applying a circuit for this purpose. The purpose of the QRAM will be to prepare classical data to quantum form (however we do not have an efficient implementation of such device so far).
– cnada
2 days ago
Thank you for your answer. I'm not sure if your answer contradicts with Norbert's(the other answer). Or maybe both of you are saying the same thing but I cannot see through it..........
– user3176354
2 days ago
Thank you for your answer. I'm not sure if your answer contradicts with Norbert's(the other answer). Or maybe both of you are saying the same thing but I cannot see through it..........
– user3176354
2 days ago
@user3176354 It does not. When I say "a circuit that does the job for you", a circuit is also an algorithm whose output is the state x. Formula 5.2 is typical of an amplitude encoding done by QRAM, which will create this preparation by applying a circuit for this purpose. The purpose of the QRAM will be to prepare classical data to quantum form (however we do not have an efficient implementation of such device so far).
– cnada
2 days ago
@user3176354 It does not. When I say "a circuit that does the job for you", a circuit is also an algorithm whose output is the state x. Formula 5.2 is typical of an amplitude encoding done by QRAM, which will create this preparation by applying a circuit for this purpose. The purpose of the QRAM will be to prepare classical data to quantum form (however we do not have an efficient implementation of such device so far).
– cnada
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
You don't convert a classical input to the r.h.s. of Eq. (5.2). The r.h.s. of Eq. (5.2) is something you get as the output of a preceding quantum computation as a quantum state, such as in Shor's algorithm. This is the only way to get an exponential speedup -- if you had to start from an exponentially big classical vector, there would be no way to solve this in polynomial time.
Thank you for your answer. But I'm still confused; according to the referenced pdf/website, the author says something between formula 5.3 and 5.4 in a way that makes want to think that we convert a classical input to the r.h.s. of Eq. (5.2). What the author says between formula 5.3 and 5.4 is " Then the action on the components of state vector x is described by 5.1 so that".
– user3176354
2 days ago
@user3176354 In the formulation you quote, there is nothing saying that this is converted to classical.
– Norbert Schuch
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
You don't convert a classical input to the r.h.s. of Eq. (5.2). The r.h.s. of Eq. (5.2) is something you get as the output of a preceding quantum computation as a quantum state, such as in Shor's algorithm. This is the only way to get an exponential speedup -- if you had to start from an exponentially big classical vector, there would be no way to solve this in polynomial time.
Thank you for your answer. But I'm still confused; according to the referenced pdf/website, the author says something between formula 5.3 and 5.4 in a way that makes want to think that we convert a classical input to the r.h.s. of Eq. (5.2). What the author says between formula 5.3 and 5.4 is " Then the action on the components of state vector x is described by 5.1 so that".
– user3176354
2 days ago
@user3176354 In the formulation you quote, there is nothing saying that this is converted to classical.
– Norbert Schuch
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
You don't convert a classical input to the r.h.s. of Eq. (5.2). The r.h.s. of Eq. (5.2) is something you get as the output of a preceding quantum computation as a quantum state, such as in Shor's algorithm. This is the only way to get an exponential speedup -- if you had to start from an exponentially big classical vector, there would be no way to solve this in polynomial time.
You don't convert a classical input to the r.h.s. of Eq. (5.2). The r.h.s. of Eq. (5.2) is something you get as the output of a preceding quantum computation as a quantum state, such as in Shor's algorithm. This is the only way to get an exponential speedup -- if you had to start from an exponentially big classical vector, there would be no way to solve this in polynomial time.
answered 2 days ago
Norbert Schuch
1,092211
1,092211
Thank you for your answer. But I'm still confused; according to the referenced pdf/website, the author says something between formula 5.3 and 5.4 in a way that makes want to think that we convert a classical input to the r.h.s. of Eq. (5.2). What the author says between formula 5.3 and 5.4 is " Then the action on the components of state vector x is described by 5.1 so that".
– user3176354
2 days ago
@user3176354 In the formulation you quote, there is nothing saying that this is converted to classical.
– Norbert Schuch
2 days ago
add a comment |
Thank you for your answer. But I'm still confused; according to the referenced pdf/website, the author says something between formula 5.3 and 5.4 in a way that makes want to think that we convert a classical input to the r.h.s. of Eq. (5.2). What the author says between formula 5.3 and 5.4 is " Then the action on the components of state vector x is described by 5.1 so that".
– user3176354
2 days ago
@user3176354 In the formulation you quote, there is nothing saying that this is converted to classical.
– Norbert Schuch
2 days ago
Thank you for your answer. But I'm still confused; according to the referenced pdf/website, the author says something between formula 5.3 and 5.4 in a way that makes want to think that we convert a classical input to the r.h.s. of Eq. (5.2). What the author says between formula 5.3 and 5.4 is " Then the action on the components of state vector x is described by 5.1 so that".
– user3176354
2 days ago
Thank you for your answer. But I'm still confused; according to the referenced pdf/website, the author says something between formula 5.3 and 5.4 in a way that makes want to think that we convert a classical input to the r.h.s. of Eq. (5.2). What the author says between formula 5.3 and 5.4 is " Then the action on the components of state vector x is described by 5.1 so that".
– user3176354
2 days ago
@user3176354 In the formulation you quote, there is nothing saying that this is converted to classical.
– Norbert Schuch
2 days ago
@user3176354 In the formulation you quote, there is nothing saying that this is converted to classical.
– Norbert Schuch
2 days ago
add a comment |
user3176354 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user3176354 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user3176354 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user3176354 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fquantumcomputing.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f4769%2fhow-to-describe-or-encode-the-input-vector-x-of-quantum-fourier-transform%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
Related: Why can the Discrete Fourier Transform be implemented efficiently as a quantum circuit?
– Blue♦
2 days ago