Loading…
A comment on “Quantum image processing?”
This comment analyzes and clarifies some questions proposed by Mastriani (Quantum Inf Process 16:27, 2017). These questions include the distinction between simulation verifications and quantum algorithms, the classical-to-quantum and quantum-to-classical interfaces, quantum measurement problem. Firs...
Saved in:
Published in: | Quantum information processing 2020-05, Vol.19 (5), Article 155 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Summary: | This comment analyzes and clarifies some questions proposed by Mastriani (Quantum Inf Process 16:27, 2017). These questions include the distinction between simulation verifications and quantum algorithms, the classical-to-quantum and quantum-to-classical interfaces, quantum measurement problem. Firstly, we propose that these questions are confusion, and even wrong. Then, we analyze the storage and computing performances of quantum Boolean image processing (QuBoIP), and conclude that QuBoIP has almost no significance for development of quantum image processing. Meanwhile, we describe how to verify the correctness of quantum algorithms using Matlab, and consider that the simulation verification of quantum algorithms is feasible on classic computers. Although quantum measurement is the open issue of quantum image processing, quantum image processing deserves further research and are significant. In conclusion, we believe that this comment is helpful for the developing of quantum image processing by clarifying these confusing questions proposed by Mario Mastriani. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1570-0755 1573-1332 |
DOI: | 10.1007/s11128-020-02654-0 |