Talk:Superoperator

Examples Added and Clarification

I added two examples and some text clarifying the use of the term. Though my search for the phrase “operator derivative” didn't turn up many references on the internet I recall its usage at some seminars and conferences. It is none the less not yet conventional so I tried to phrase the section accordingly and gave the definition in terms of common terminology. I added no references but didn't think my addition needed any. I welcome further edits.

As far as the topic is concerned, superoperator is a term in some use in the math-physics community and I think keeping this article is of value to those reading other papers and needing to look up the term. I'll keep a lookout for some substantial references and add them if/as I run across any.

What is more, I find this term very very useful conceptually. It fits a gap otherwise existing in mathematical terminology. (Though “meta-operator” would fit as well. That term however is used in a somewhat different context in the subject of computer languages.)

Regards, James Baugh (talk) 17:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I doubt that your examples are commonly used. They are neat explanations, but I would argue that they do not have encyclopedic value and rather made up for illustration purposes. Are there any references which make excessive use of the term superoperator in this way? Anyway, the best examples imho are completely positive maps, which we already link to. IXhdBAH (talk) 13:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

suggest delete

i am sorry but i suggest this page should go. not sure the terminology is standard at all. in any case, relevant material is already discussed in Choi's theorem on completely positive maps, Stinespring factorization theorem, Quantum channel, Quantum operation, and maybe elsewhere. Mct mht 16:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

or perhaps merge or redirect. in that case, some evidence that the term, certainly not common, if used at all, in the mathematically oriented literature, is in sufficiently wide use would be nice. personally i find the terminology peculiar and prefer the "linear CP map between C* algebras" description. Mct mht 16:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this. It does come up a lot in the literature on quantum programming languages, usually as a denotational semantics for said languages. If it is a concept that appears in several other places, maybe it should have it's own page with a definition and links to those other pages. I have come across the term superoperator in physics literature as well, but C* algebras are usually in the domain of mathematics. Maybe super operators is only the computer science way of thinking about completely positive maps over C* algebras, but the term does exist as is used in many recent, and groundbraking, scientific papers (for example, Selinger's Towards a Quantum Programming Language. Maybe a page explaining all this would be useful, unless there is already a page doing that. If not, why not redirect as before this page super-op returned not much. I'd expand it myself but I'm a bit busy at the moment and Im not a mathematician. Thanks --82.10.215.62 20:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

ok, i believe you re usage of this term. Mct mht 02:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Mct mht, if even you're not sure whether it should be redirected, and it's on the list of requested math articles, I don't think it qualifies as a speedy. If you want to press the issue, I'd recommend WP:AFD or merge it in somewhere else. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You know, this page isn't what I expected too... --HappyCamper 18:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

seriously suggest delete

This deletion discussion is now three years old but the page still exists. Yes, this term is used in quantum information literature, but it is used in several different meanings. E.g. I think it is also used in the description of dissipative systems. There it denotes general linear mappings between operators. Imho, not having this page in wp is still better than misleading information. 85.127.20.219 (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Argh. Added deletion note, but cannot create the necessary discussion pages. What a shame. If anybody drops by, could he/she please add this (even if you're not convinced)? 85.127.20.219 (talk) 21:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

@76.66.194.183: Removed computing and software links. This article is not at all related to computing or software, quantum computing has little to do with classical computing. In principle it is only related to physics, not to mathematics. 85.127.39.254 (talk) 06:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This is NOT a delete

This topic is very notable, just this encyclopedia has no physics peopl left.Likebox (talk) 04:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)