Epsilon1024

Please assign me to this issue as I am currently working on a fix.

I'm currently having an issue with the precision when checking the polynomial pairs on the unit circle. The regular QSP test uses a precision of 1e-7. This method runs a...

> very cool! I left some comments (the docstring ones are useful but not urgent). > > Could you add some more tests - larger degrees and verifying the actual...

Update: I was able to get the error below 1e-7 by tweaking some parameters. (I used a different miniization method than was used by the authors of the paper, and...

I also found that the test_generalized_real_qsp_with_symbolic_signal_matrix fails with the new qsp method. The test will run 10 random polynomials of each degree. Oddly enough, most of them pass the test...

There are two small followups I will be adding after this PR is submitted: 1) This version does not normalize P before calculating Q. (From my understanding the first version...

As a note: I ran some checks to see if normalizing P before running the tests on fast_complementary_polynomial would give us more accurate results. From my checks, it performs slightly...

I will also be contributing to this as part of my 20% project.

Thanks! I also wrote a [design doc](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ePUgjxX7ZuRoJnkyLRDiMAhESbF9k0skJ0sIEs8sO8s/edit?resourcekey=0-d2vQ0u60FD64Rttvq42SYw&tab=t.0#heading=h.xap2blpnxe4). Feel free to leave any comments. I like your Qualtran.simulation.tensor approach from your doc. Let's discuss the pros and cons of both.