# Quantum Computing for Computer Scientists

Quantum Computing for Computer Scientists

This talk discards hand-wavy pop-science metaphors and answers a simple question: from a computer science perspective, how can a quantum computer outperform a classical computer? Attendees will learn the following:

– Representing computation with basic linear algebra (matrices and vectors)

– The computational workings of qbits, superposition, and quantum logic gates

– Solving the Deutsch oracle problem: the simplest problem where a quantum computer outperforms classical methods

– Bonus topics: quantum entanglement and teleportation

The talk concludes with a live demonstration of quantum entanglement on a real-world quantum computer, and a demo of the Deutsch oracle problem implemented in Q# with the Microsoft Quantum Development Kit. This talk assumes no prerequisite knowledge, although comfort with basic linear algebra (matrices, vectors, matrix multiplication) will ease understanding.

See more at https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/video/quantum-computing-computer-scientists/

Hi, my name is Jhon.

Is there anyway to use these slides? I’m a Systems Eng. student at UNAL Bogotá and I’m preparing a brief presentation abour QC with a partner, we think that your slides are a wonderful working material.

Thanks for the attention, and nice video.

this guy is brilliant, who knows him?

It’s funny how entanglement discussed with people confronted for the first time with the concept INVARIABLY leads to a discussion along the lines of "wait – but what you go to other end of the universe and I measure my qbit… is there not a way for you to know that I have?". No, there is none, but we will forever keep on having to discuss the issue!

Nice teaching session.

As someone with basically 0 knowledge about the topic this was awesome! Really good explanation, i actually feel like i learned something which is not always the case in some of these talks

At 23:20, he says "there are states where we can’t factor out the product states", does he mean that there are some 4 complex numbers (2 qubits, a 1×4 matrix) that we can’t write in the tensor product form?

DEVE SER USADO PARA ENCONTRAR A CURA DAS DOENÇAS E PROBLEMAS SOCIAIS

Thank you for an excellent lecture. Very helpful.

you can also watch kurzgesagts video instead too

Thank you for this amazingly dense, informative and casual presentation! I enjoyed it! =D

this kid is actually very funny without knowing it, as well as an excellent lecturer

thank you sir

"..and our language is not developed for this. Anything i trying to tell you is fundamentally a lie, except for the math." 🙂 thank you! 🙂

thank you so much, this is the first tutorial I really understood. the way you taught maths and stuff felt easy to grab. thank you.

21.10 "we dont use photons because they collapse too easy"

Hilarious.

Id love to see you write information on a massless photon.

21 mins in ive seen 4 errors.

Thought microsoft would have better talent.

Quantum computers cant be applied in reality.

So many dumb people pretending they understand any of the maths and theory behind the qbit science fiction.

I hope someone can come back to this comment and prove me wrong one day. Highly doubt it though.

This is one of the best introductions to quantum computing that I’ve seen. Other teachers should use this presentation as a template to expand on. <insert J++ joke> Thanks to whoever that guy is, he’s a good (nifty) instructor!

Annnnnnnnndddddd in 2020 quantum computing is nowhere near "supremacy"…Nice try kid.

"drac vector notation" 5:24

You have angered the physicists.

This taught me more than ever about this topic – bravo!

But that "outperform" argument seems weak (what am I missing?)

34:43 “Blackbox – you can try inputs and observe outputs … how many queries to determine if function is constant or variable?”

On classical box with one wire going in and one wire going out the tester must take 2 measures – ok, no problem.

On quantum box the tester takes one measure (turns around ensuring no one else is looking), ignores the Output completely and measures that other wire supposedly added for reversibility purpose – which conveniently happens to have the answer we are looking for (umm)

Me: adds a second outgoing wire to the classical box that is 0 if function is constant and 1 if function is variable and calls the competition a tie.

The arrow of time is running back ward at the Quatum level.

Really enjoying this, in terms I can easily understand. I am not a physicist, but CS, yes!

12121220110002012012111000201220012101021200200221100121221101222002100101210212002210122101211211100010201202121002021012

more slides, less shots of guy drinking soda and telling us how simple it all is, lol

"i think i did an okay job of explaining it" you are in a superposition of being a good and unemployed.

Why are the students so old

Around 1:10:00 the question he was trying to get at is that you can’t prove that each time you are doing the distribution of measurements of creating q bits and collapsing them that each time they have a probability of collapsing to both. But rather that they had decided to collapse on one value prior each time a new pair was created. We know that the information was correlated but we don’t know if it just so happens that any arbitrary sum of entangled bits will be correlated to 0 or 1 in a 50% distribution when in actuality each specific pair never had a probability of collapsing to the other value than it collapsed to. Which is actually aiming as something very deep in quantum mechanics which is that these bits may be entangled with the future state of pairs. So say you test 1000 bits right and 498 are 1 502 are 0, if you had planned to collapse 10,000 bits instead of 1000 then maybe some of those that had collapsed to 1 would have collapsed to 1 anyway and the ones for 0 also or maybe they wouldn’t have, in order to maintain the distribution as 50% under the conditions of 10,000 pair collapses. In this case the bits have to worry about how large your sample size in your distribution, because they’re somehow dependent on the number of entangled future bits. At least that is how I interpreted his question.

1000th Comment

wow the reaity will change and also the language beacuse it is not quamtum

should have showed the slide more than the guy

Great motivating talk, thank You so much!!

very solemnly do I thank the youtube algorithms

????????

X/^XX=1

"So, faster than light coordination okay, but faster than light communication not okay. Okay ?"

Okay ! Message received 5/5, in both states ! No, wait…

Teoría de cuerdas en minuto 1:03:00

Guys kinda hot

Also, seeing as Google has performed Quantum Supremacy even without applying a real algorithm yet…I wonder if there was an exponential error term how exactly it grew?

You make try youself in 2020 https://www.tensorflow.org/quantum

Why do you keep cutting away from a useful slide to watch him pretend to drink, so annoying.

Can you give your mail id

bull shit no photon…no i wont tell so shut up tired of the lies….

So I didn’t quite grasp the practical application of quantum teleportation due to the lack of the trigger for the receiving end.

Would one such practical application Be to stream cubits to remote locations for long-term storage with the intent of massive instantaneous data transfers with a light speed trigger such as a laser.

Basically high-speed instantaneous bulk data transfer by using a laser as the trigger to indicate the states have been collapsed and retrieve the data remotely?

If so I could see how that would help locally as in Earth to Mars and vice versa. Tiny lightspeed synchronization signal with instantaneous bulk transfer?

This is literally the best video on quantum mechanics, how could 275 people dislike it?

This is therapeutic 🥴

So the Hadamard gate is a tensor transformation law which represents a change of basis in a quantum computing state, and the intrinsic abilities of a tensor—that is, its ability to perform forward and reverse transformations to end up where you started, as it were—make reversible computing possible? Or is that just complete gobbledygook?

Difficult to understand the concept of 2 in 1 perhaps for Christians who believe in 3 in 1 without could explaining it

Thanks you excellent video!!!

wooohooooo . . . we used 2 bits on a quantum computer to qualify 4 states which out performed a classic computer trying to identify 4 states with 1 bit . . . .now thats spooky action

Just like me during my presentation, I tired to be funny but no body laughing. Keep it up

It’s funny because the EPR paradox incident is more like a trend than a once off. Examples include the story of the Poisson Spot or Millikan’s oil drop experiment. The irony of attempts to discredit a theory actually proving the theory is clearly not lost on history.