You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Latest document looks great! Below is my "1 am" stream of consciousness:
In equation (2), R_K is not defined until much later in the document (page 10 I think).
In equation (8), \omega_0 is introduced but the symbol \omega_{LC} is introduced in the previous section to refer to the same thing.
There are a few times throughout the document where the dependence of coupling on the mode impedance is discussed. The two examples that come to mind when I read this are: (i) for a transmon, C is fixed and so the only way to vary Z_{LC} is by changing L which also changes \omega_{LC} and (ii) for high-kinetic inductance resonators, L goes way up so to maintain the same \omega_{LC}, C must go way down which increases Z_{LC}. I'm not sure if this is worth integrating into a footnote, but are these the cases you had in mind?
In section 3.1, the simple derivation uses a symbol V_q which is implicitly defined through the last equality on the rhs on the unnumbered equation of that section.
Fig. 2 is missing the symbol R_d as in Fig. 1
In section 3.2, the sentence that starts with "Just as we did for the capacitive drive..." uses a two instead of a to. In the sentences that follows there is a "wnder" instead of an under.
I am assuming the missing L_a and L_b in Fig. 3 were intentionally left out? Same question for Fig. 4 except about C_a and C_b.
In section 5, the symbol \omega_a is used to refer to the qubit frequency with regard to equation (25). I think \omega_q was meant to be used.
In the last sentence of section 5, there is a "Noet" instead of Note.
I could be making this up, but I believe our fields convention for the raising and lowering operators differs from a lot of other places. It could be worth defining them in terms of outer products to avoid any potential confusion.
In section 5.3, the subscripts a & b on the \sigma terms were dropped. Not sure if this was intentional, but a different convention was used in section 4.1-4.2 to discuss qubit-qubit interaction terms.
I will send you a dope way to write equation (37) tomorrow but I am too tired right now and need to go to bed.
After section 6, the symbol Z_q is used to talk about the qubit's impedance. I see why you didn't decide to reuse Z_{LC}, but it could be worth noting their equivalence so people know how to compute it.
In section 6.3, the symbol R_e is introduced to discuss the external line resistance. Perhaps it is worth using R_d since it was used in sections 3.1-3.2 and in Fig. 1-2 to refer to the same thing.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Latest document looks great! Below is my "1 am" stream of consciousness:
In equation (2), R_K is not defined until much later in the document (page 10 I think).
In equation (8), \omega_0 is introduced but the symbol \omega_{LC} is introduced in the previous section to refer to the same thing.
There are a few times throughout the document where the dependence of coupling on the mode impedance is discussed. The two examples that come to mind when I read this are: (i) for a transmon, C is fixed and so the only way to vary Z_{LC} is by changing L which also changes \omega_{LC} and (ii) for high-kinetic inductance resonators, L goes way up so to maintain the same \omega_{LC}, C must go way down which increases Z_{LC}. I'm not sure if this is worth integrating into a footnote, but are these the cases you had in mind?
In section 3.1, the simple derivation uses a symbol V_q which is implicitly defined through the last equality on the rhs on the unnumbered equation of that section.
Fig. 2 is missing the symbol R_d as in Fig. 1
In section 3.2, the sentence that starts with "Just as we did for the capacitive drive..." uses a two instead of a to. In the sentences that follows there is a "wnder" instead of an under.
I am assuming the missing L_a and L_b in Fig. 3 were intentionally left out? Same question for Fig. 4 except about C_a and C_b.
In section 5, the symbol \omega_a is used to refer to the qubit frequency with regard to equation (25). I think \omega_q was meant to be used.
In the last sentence of section 5, there is a "Noet" instead of Note.
I could be making this up, but I believe our fields convention for the raising and lowering operators differs from a lot of other places. It could be worth defining them in terms of outer products to avoid any potential confusion.
In section 5.3, the subscripts a & b on the \sigma terms were dropped. Not sure if this was intentional, but a different convention was used in section 4.1-4.2 to discuss qubit-qubit interaction terms.
I will send you a dope way to write equation (37) tomorrow but I am too tired right now and need to go to bed.
After section 6, the symbol Z_q is used to talk about the qubit's impedance. I see why you didn't decide to reuse Z_{LC}, but it could be worth noting their equivalence so people know how to compute it.
In section 6.3, the symbol R_e is introduced to discuss the external line resistance. Perhaps it is worth using R_d since it was used in sections 3.1-3.2 and in Fig. 1-2 to refer to the same thing.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: