James A. Donald writes:

...

The new operator is a unitary transformation on a single bit.

Mike McNally writes

Ok, great. So why is it that a description of a process to be followed by a quantum copmputer in order to produce some desired result not an algorithm just because it involves this operator?

Obviously one could choose to call these algorithms if one wished, but such a name, if adopted, will obfuscate the fact that such things have very different properties, capabilities, and limitations to conventional algorithms. In particular the results of conventional complexity theory obviously are largely irrelevant to quantum complexity theory, which is why I made my original statement that the development of quantum computers with capabilities that are impossible for conventional computers cannot falsify existing complexity theory and existing complexity theory cannot "disprove" the alleged capabilities of quantum computers. Very likely the name will be adopted but with a qualifier "quantum algorithm". In the event that quantum computers become common (which I do not expect to happen for thirty years or so) I expect the phrase "quantum algorithm" will be replaced by something shorter, so that we have one word for algorithms, and another word for quantum algorithms. We have wandered seriously off topic, and I will make future replies in private email. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of animals that we James A. Donald are. True law derives from this right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state. jamesd@netcom.com