acroy

@jrevels : I basically agree with what you say and, in particular, I would also like to avoid redundant types. Unfortunately, states (= density matrices) and operators do not always...

> I've normally thought of the density matrix as a representation of an operator describing an ensemble of states, rather than a representation of a state in and of itself...

As I said, I think it is good to start with a package and if it turns out to be of general interest we can include it to QuBase. In...

So you want to have a basis that consists of a product of N qubits? Right now the memory footprint of `FiniteBasis` would be `8 N` bytes. If you want...

The main problem I see with silently converting `v` to `QuArray` with `qv`'s basis is that the meaning of `v` depends on the context. You can consider this a bug...

@Qi: Those are excellent points. I have added some to the list (eventually we might want to transfer this roadmap + ideas to a separate document). I agree that we...

@blakejohnson : May I ask why you need the propagator? It is typically much more efficient to avoid the calculation of the propagator itself (in particular for QMEs). So unless...

"More efficient" depends of course on your problem (size). If you have a Hamiltonian of size 100x100 matrix exponentiation will be fast(est), but it is clear that it doesn't scale...

Thanks for the references. For problems with only a few basis-states calculating the propagator shouldn't be a (performance) problem. I think we can provide some functions for that in QuDynamics....

This problem came up in the context of #63 which is fixed now. However, this issue is not about a bug - it is a [design decision](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/58002026/is-it-always-wrong-to-terminate-the-calling-program-e-g-call-exit-from-a-l). IMO there is...