Matthew Neeley

I'd say yes this is still a concern. It'd be nice to unify these tomography functions, but not a blocker for 1.0.

> Another, would be to encapsulate channels in a type that hides the representation and provides methods for tasks such as the application of the channel to a state, the...

@dabacon, isn't it true that an n-qubit measurement is equivalent to n 1-qubit measurements? In that case instead of 2^n channel elements of size 2^n x 2^n we can represent...

I just noticed that in the density matrix simulator we actually do this decomposition for the measurement channel, at least in the case where we are ignoring measurement results (see...

Hi @baverman, I wanted to ask whether there's any chance to get this merged? I'd love to be able to continue using flameprof without having to patch it locally to...

I don't know what the expected behavior is; I guess maybe the idea here is that if an op can't be decomposed this is supposed to raise? The docs for...

I'm not particularly keen on the idea of changing `Result.measurements` to return the values for the last instance of a key, because I feel like that could mask other problems....

Thanks for the clarification, @daxfohl. I don't think `z` is a particularly unique name and the tomography code doesn't check that the key is not present in the circuit already,...

> I think both myself and @adamreichold have been struggling for availability recently, sorry to all who have been waiting. I have some conflicting priority work to achieve in PyO3...

> Hey guys, thx for the hard work. Any update on this? We're trying to get support for numpy2 merged first (#442), then we'll come back to this. We're having...