
The Theory of Quantum Information - mxschumacher
https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/~watrous/TQI/
======
jacobparker
I took Watrous’s theory of (classical) computation course during my UW
undergrad.

His lecturers were always very well prepared and engaging, the notes he
released (iirc there were some supplementary notes) were great and his
assignments were interesting. He also had consistently great type setting.

I guess I wanted to say that this book is probably cool.

~~~
darkmighty
I'm slightly disappointed this book doesn't cover quantum computing -- which
nowadays seems like a central part of quantum information. Any comprehensive
resources to learn fundamentals of quantum computing? (without delving too
deeply into particular applications)

~~~
jessriedel
Nielsen and Chuang is still canonical, albeit a little out of date. Has all
the basics, and it's extremely well written.

~~~
vturner
Also becoming curious in quantum computing again (the current wave in
classical software development is depressing IMHO so looking for an
alternative for the futre). I read a good portion of Quantum Computing for
Computer Scientists as an undergrad studying physics for a paper, but in
searching for new texts, most people point to Nielsen and Chuang yet comment
it is dated. Any good literature reviews out there to consider to get the new
content Nielsen and Chuang don't have (while studying the Chuang's book as
well)?

~~~
jessriedel
No, sorry, it's not really my field. However, my impression is that the
results in Nielsen and Chuang haven't been superceded or anything, it's just
that there's just more built on top of them. In other words, I think you're
fine reading that cover-to-cover and worrying about further reading
afterwards.

------
DoofusOfDeath
Slightly OT, but I get annoyed when an idea is presented as "THE theory of
..." or "THE mathematics of ...", as opposed to " _A_ theory/mathematics of
..."

As though that particularly bit of theoretical work is uniquely appropriate
for the phenomenon it's meant to describe.

Am I alone in this?

~~~
ssivark
But it is _supposed to be so_! At least in physics or mathematics (and the
"harder" sciences), if there are multiple descriptions, they better be
completely equivalent in the answers they give, otherwise all but one of them
are _wrong_. It is possible that different fundamentally equivalent frameworks
might be more suited to different problems (eg: Newtonian mechanics -vs-
Lagrangian mechanics)

------
adamisntdead
I am always impressed by the amount of content posted about Quantum Computing
on hn. As a subject I find really interesting, it's really encouraging to see
other people with the same interest, even if it is just casual!

