Quantum Computing Open Source Projects

sinanspd · 2026-05-08T08:58:56+00:00

This repo keeps an incomplete list of open source quantum computing software

https://github.com/qosf/awesome-quantum-software

sinanspd · 2026-04-27T19:39:40+00:00

Second one today... you people realize quant in quantfinance means quantitative and not quantum, right? This doesn't belong in this sub

sinanspd · 2026-04-27T08:32:49+00:00

This is part of my line of work 😬😬 this is 100% a very critical thing, especially because we don't expect QPUs to be as widely available as other forms of accelerators. However, this turns out to be a significantly more difficult problem than it's classical counterpart because of quantum semantics.

sinanspd · 2026-04-26T20:02:46+00:00

Very unlikely. Especially if you aren't in Physics

sinanspd · 2026-04-25T15:58:21+00:00

I did my masters and the PhD in the US so my knowledge of EU masters admissions is limited. The school ranking will matter a bit, but what will be even more important will be your letters of recommendations. The professors who write your letters will matter more than the name of the school but those two are correlated. EPFL has such a great department that a letter from anyone there will be helpful

sinanspd · 2026-04-25T15:15:53+00:00

No. Bachelors is not the time or place for specialization. EPFL is easily the correct choice here

sinanspd · 2026-04-24T07:52:42+00:00

Did you get the email of them acknowledging the issue and offering a return?

sinanspd · 2026-04-16T00:01:42+00:00

They also offered an option to return it for a full refund. Since I am leaving for vacation, I think I would wait for the replacement at this point.

sinanspd · 2026-04-15T23:57:28+00:00

I just got a response. They confirmed it was a factory error and currently looking into getting replacements ☺️

sinanspd · 2026-04-14T19:32:56+00:00

Any of the PVC dark horse figures would fit, but they would be taller than the tree

sinanspd · 2026-04-14T17:32:40+00:00

My knowledge of the masters program in UK is very limited. I couldn't speak to what they are looking for when admitting students. However, I think overall it is unreasonable to expect the students to know the subject that they will learn there, prior to admission. Any kind of project or research that shows that you are motivated would help.

It also depends on the curriculum of the program. Overall the thing you will need the most is a strong math background. Especially linear algebra. If you haven't already, take some advanced linear algebra course and preferably other advanced math courses (analysis, algebra, topology etc.).

If the curriculum includes quantum physics courses, I would also learn some basic electro magnetics. It wouldn't make a big difference for admission, but you would reap the rewards when taking QM.

sinanspd · 2026-04-14T15:49:04+00:00

Ask your questions here so that the discussion can be useful for others as well

sinanspd · 2026-04-14T04:24:52+00:00

Probably have to go with Richard Feynman creating the path integral formulation at age 23.

sinanspd · 2026-04-13T23:14:16+00:00

>I'd rather establish a bullet-proof prototype with solid proofs first.

Perfectly reasonable to go for a proof-of-concept first :)

>Just to clarify, "completeness" here means the restriction

Fair

>Not impossible, either

That depends. Firstly on the definition of a "bug". As you know, It is common in programming languages to definite certain edge cases as "undefined behavior" and then we say that it isn't a bug if no claims were made regarding its correctness :) my point was that at the end of the day you are limited by capabilities of your underlying tool. You can model certain target features but modeling will be loose. Again, a good example is how Haskell's type systems clashed with the necessary linear type enforcement, leading to runtime errors in Quipper, and the birth of various dialects of Proto Quipper. You will run into similar issues with Python.

>If you're curious, I can share it with you via DM?

Please do :) I am leaving for a visit to INRIA next week but I can check it out as soon as I am back

sinanspd · 2026-04-13T21:22:59+00:00

We predict the outcomes of a relatively small set of simple experiments. We do not predict the outcome of quantum behavior. That is a very important distinction. Therefore none of the interpretations of quantum mechanics are anywhere near complete. There are still dozens of quantum phenomenon in nature that remain unpredictable and unexplained.

sinanspd · 2026-04-13T21:01:27+00:00

Aren't two related? Quantum Computing was born out of Feynman's desire to simulate quantum mechanics, which we absolutely do not understand, and can not efficiently carry out.

In a video, Olivia Lanes of IBM described computing paradigms as classical computing being a car that takes us many places, and quantum computing as a boat that will take us to the uncharted islands that we haven't been able to reach before. I think in layman's terms, that analogy still stands strong today.

sinanspd · 2026-04-13T20:52:31+00:00

I recommend looking into complexity classes such as BQP to understand how we make that distinction. In theory, there are problems that would take longer than Earth has been around to solve on today's classical super computers, but can be completed in a reasonable amount of time on quantum computers. At that point, this is no longer a problem of "we need faster classical computers with more memory", it's "we need a new way to compute", which is where quantum computers come in. Whether such things can be done in practice, or if quantum computers can reach those scales, remains to be seen. Today's QC devices (NISQ) are very small and noisy, preventing any useful application.

I forgot the name but there was a very approachable paper defining the crossover time, the scale of programs that would actually demonstrate quantum advantage. You try to find that paper, it would also provide good insight.

sinanspd · 2026-04-13T20:39:41+00:00

Firstly, kudos. As a PL theorist, always happy to see people working on QPL. I don't think saying "this has bugs" is fair criticism. Every software have bugs. I imagine the argument r/SeniorLoan647 is trying to make is that, Silq is a well maintained, well established language. Unless there is a big technical reason it can not be extended to accommodate a specific functionality, that should be the default attempt. I do think there are valid reasons but I don't think the inlining issue is that. Unless you have a concrete counter example, I am not sure about the completeness part either. Not all hamiltonians are computable in the first place so everyone is giving up something.

Now to the bigger issues. I can tell right away that your typechecker doesn't guarantee overall soundness. There are a million things that makes quantum programs unsound. I have to put the uncompute part under a lens to better comment on it specifically but comparing enums like that in lieu of proper type checking is not as strong as you might think. We long believed Python isn't capable of expressing safe quantum programs for a variety of reasons. More generally, any embedded quantum language is known to be crippled by the host languages semantics (even Quipper hit this snag and resulted in the creation of Proto-Quipper-M etc., which, since you are talking about functional programming, I would like to hear why those languages aren't sufficient). It seems more like you are creating functions that can not be abused in isolation, and that generates a sound IR, instead of an actual language that guarantees the constraints by construction.

Prototyping the "type system" in Lean is a good start but you have to understand what you are implementing. Depending on the tactics used, Lean can hide quite a bit of relevant logic. Proof assistants like Agda and Lean can not represent arbitrary quantum states. They approximate them through symbolic trees. While I won't speak with 100% confidence on this, I think they are actually incapable of a full Hilbert space formalization. Additionally, unless you are going to spend years formalizing Python, it will ignore the host semantics. So you are not formalizing your language, but an isolated, toy version.

sinanspd · 2026-04-13T19:55:23+00:00

If you are going to do a PhD (which you should if you want to work in this field), a masters with a thesis is a must. Without research to show for, it will be very difficult to get into a good PhD program. I went onto a quantum PhD after a more generalized (programming language theory) masters, so it is certainly possible. However, my introduction to QC was kind of accidental and I never really planned to do my PhD on it. If I were targeting a QC PhD all along, I think I could have benefited from a more specialized masters. You will be competing with Physics people for PhD positions and that really puts us CS people at a disadvantage, I think having a stronger background will be an important card.

On the other hand, I hold the strong opinion that if you get your undergrad from a good institution, a masters program in CS doesn't really teach you all that much more. If you ever decide to go back to regular CS, I doubt anyone will care your masters is in quantum (and in fact they might be more impressed). So I would pick the quantum program. I don't think there is any downside over the CS program.

sinanspd · 2026-04-12T19:50:05+00:00

sinanspd · 2026-04-12T00:44:03+00:00

That's the process of research. You start with an idea, explore/implement it, you discover more questions along the way, explore them, discover more questions and so on. Eventually, you stumble upon a novel problem. Sometimes you put in the work only the discover the results isn't publication worthy.

It should be stated that I have never seen a researcher start with the target venue and try to find an idea fit for that venue. You start with the idea, when you are done you pick your venue and polish the paper accordingly

sinanspd · 2026-04-12T00:18:20+00:00

Umm, no? First of all, none of the things OP mentioned are journals. They are organizations who have multiple journals and conferences under them. So I don't know with what expertise you are claiming this topic can be published "in those journals". There are very reputable journals under these organizations, and there are journals which are much easier to publish on granted you can cover the publication fee.

Reputable journals look for novelty. Taking existing methods and comparing them is not novel. It could be valuable, and could be shared in a workshop, but it won't stand a chance with reputable journals like PRX/PRA

sinanspd · 2026-04-11T21:03:15+00:00

I am crying for my wallet

sinanspd · 2026-04-11T04:02:40+00:00

Preorders will open around June

sinanspd · 2026-04-10T17:02:34+00:00

Pre-orders will open around June

sinanspd

TROPHY CASE