[a1369209993]

> Using the word copy in conjunction with C-NOT is slightly misleading as the copies do not behave independently.

That's what the word "copy" means. If you flip a coin and copy that bit, you will observe that those copies do not behave independently either. If you want independent bits, flip two coins.

Similarly, "erasing" a (qu)bit technically consists of performing a exchange operation between it and a known-zero bit. In typical electronic computers, this would generally involve diffusion-like exchanges between the voltage level in a memory capacitor (such as a FET gate) and that on the GND rail, which has a much greater effective number of bits and therefore will stay mostly zero, but eventually requires a thermodynamic expenditure of known-valued bits (aka negentropy) from some external source to maintain its voltage level / bit zeroness. (This is rather simplified; there's lots of other sources of known-zero and known-one bits getting depleted and replenished, and the exact accounting depends on how you interpret various physical states information-theoretically.)

[a1369209993]

> In typical electronic computers,

That should have had a "for example" in front.

[aeternum]

Calling it a copy seems to me to violate QM's no cloning theorem, but maybe it's just that we have slightly different definitions of 'copy'.

[a1369209993]

The no cloning theorem is just the rigorous quantum mechanical version of the fact that if you flip a coin and write down the result, then copy what you just wrote down, you don't get two independent coin flips.