Ryan is exactly correct. The method would work with any of the clock constructions, however we decided that the machinery they developed to make sure it was implementable in qubits was unnecessary overhead for a classical implementation, where having a qudit with large d does not present a great ch
I'll let Jarrod correct me if he disagrees but I think the point Jarrod is making is that the original clocks of Feynman and Kitaev were designed with physical implementation in mind whereas this proposal is for a classical algorithm and as such, should not be measured by the same considerations (su
Would there be any issue if you had used the original Feynman's clock or Kitaev's clock for simulating quantum systems classically?
Thank you for your quick reply. In that case, as long as we are using qubits for your scheme we should be good. Having said that I am afraid it may jeopardize the local structure recommended by Feynman to some extent.
Thank you for your interest in our paper! The reason for the apparent discrepancy is that our paper is designed for classical simulation of quantum systems using ideas (namely Feynman's Clock) from quantum computation. When performing the simulation on a classical computer, the underlying qubit st
In equation 7 of the paper, the clock register is different from Feynman's original proposal. According to this paper, for a four clock steps quantum circuit, the sequence of the state of the clock register will be $|00\rangle \to |01\rangle \to |10\rangle \to |11\rangle$. It infers that we will nee
Physicists may be also interested in a realistic proposal of DFS computation with solid-state qubits: Phys. Lett. A 374, 3285 (2010), arXiv:0903.1056 [quant-ph]