
Quantum Computing explained with a hands-on tutorial in 10 mins - Viveckh
https://medium.com/@viveckh/build-a-quantum-circuit-in-10-mins-ft-qiskit-ibms-sdk-for-quantum-programming-75435b99ee9e
======
vtomole
I like the hands-on tutorial. I have a couple of comments.

> teleportation might be a reality ;).

Please say "quantum teleportation" instead of "teleportation" so readers don't
confuse
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation)
with
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleportation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleportation).
They are completely different concepts.

> That notion of both “dead and alive” is exactly what superposition is.

No, this is not what superposition is. The cat example was Schrödinger’s
method of illustrating how counter-intuitive quantum superposition is. Please
refer to the superposition principle
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_principle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_principle))
instead.

> But what if you could entangle them together so both would always guarantee
> to yield the same outcome? That’s what entanglement is all about.

This is not what entanglement is all about. You say "both their wave functions
will yield the same outcome." It's the same wave-function when they are
entangled, not different ones.

~~~
Viveckh
Thanks for the feedback, truly appreciate it! Will make those changes.

The superposition part though, maybe I could've been more clearer, but I meant
to imply the "being in both states" is what superposition meant. I saw it
being similar to the coin example conceptually. Or was the coin example
supposed to be a more proper representative of the concept?

~~~
vtomole
That coin example is not a proper representative either. There is no
possibility for interference. I recommend you explain superposition by making
the analogy that in coins, the probabilities are real numbers but in quantum
mechanics they are complex amplitudes. The way you should explain this is like
[https://www.scottaaronson.com/qclec/2.pdf](https://www.scottaaronson.com/qclec/2.pdf).

Don't avoid math. You can't explain superposition and entanglement correctly
without it. I didn't need to read those sections to figure out that they were
incorrect. I just looked for some notation like vectors, matrices e.t.c.. and
I didn't see any.

