Add support for ControlledQubitUnitary
#50
Conversation
Hosseinberg
changed the title
ControlledQubitUnitaryControlledQubitUnitary
|
added a test |
|
Friendly nudge @isaacdevlugt 🙂 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks a lot for this contribution, @Hosseinberg! And sorry for the delay. I think this is mostly good to merge. There are just a couple minor changes I suggested.
And if my understanding of the test is correct, I think we should add a test case for a non-trivial control-register state. Let me know what you think.
|
|
||
| op = qml.ControlledQubitUnitary(mat, wires=list(range(len(control_wires), N+len(control_wires))), | ||
| control_wires=control_wires) | ||
| dev.apply([qml.QubitStateVector(state, wires=list(range(N + len(control_wires)))), op]) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure I understand this correctly, but does this leave the control wires in the |0> state? This would make the control operation trivial, no? Maybe it would be good to test this for the |+> state in the control register. What do you think?
Co-authored-by: Frederik Wilde <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Frederik Wilde <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Frederik Wilde <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Frederik Wilde <[email protected]>
Hi @Hosseinberg, I just wanted to check in and hear what you think about this comment? I think if we have a test like this we can merge the PR. |
resolves issue #49. Tests need to be added though.