Talk:PostBQP

Merger proposal

I think PostBQP = PP should be merged with this article, since it is unlikely that there is much more to say about PostBQP other than the fact that it is equal to PP. The PostBQP article also provides enough background for someone to understand the equivalence of the two classes. One detailed article on PostBQP which explains pretty much everything that is interesting about PostBQP is better than several shorter articles. --Robin (talk) 01:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree - I originally merged this article with PP, as an alternate characterisation of that class, but that may have been going a bit too far if this article is to become large. Dcoetzee 02:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

My main reason for leaving the proof as a separate page was to avoid making the PostBQP page too long (e.g. which might risk having the proof deleted), but I don't have a strong feeling on it, whatever better fits wikipedia seems good to me now that I'm done editing it.Daveagp (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Alright then, I'll perform the merge. --Robin (talk) 03:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)