|
|
|
|
|
by dabeddabed
978 days ago
|
|
I think it makes sense but I also what I said before so if these really can't be compatible then I'm still confused, what I believe is that non superposing states should be a subset of any superposed state with its corresponding computational basis state, something like: |Simulated state |Computational basis state that allows classical simulation| |Non entangled superposed state |product/stabilizer/fermionic state| |Entangled superposed state |stabilizer/fermionic state| |Magic superposed state |fermionic state| So as I see it non superposing states are a special case of any classically simulable superposed state so they can always be classically simulated. |
|
For example imagine we have a big, complicated quantum circuit, which doesn't look "nice" in any way, but at every time it happens that the state may be expressed as a superposition of only 2 (or a few) stabilzer states. Even though the states are simple in this sense, we wouldn't expect to be able to efficiently classically simulate this circuit.
This is because even though there is an efficient classical description of the state of the quantum computer at every timestep (the efficient description is as a superposition of a few stabilizer states), there isn't an efficient way to find these efficient classical descriptions, or even notice that they exist.