Well my point bringing up truth tables, just gets at, when you begin to consider additional states, you have to overhaul the instructions.
The software piece of QC dictates what they attempt to build at the hardware level.
With binary that was pretty easy, but with an infinite state option changes happen. Just cranking it up to tertiary becomes murky.
AND
1,1=1
1,0=0
0,1=0
0,0=0
Tertiary?
AND
1,1=1
1,0=0
0,1=0
0,0=0
2,1=?
0,2=0
2,0=0
2,2=? 1? why not 2?
etc...
That's why Connelly has his tidbit in the tertiary computing article on wikipedia.
However, that's a heavy handed simplification of issues that begin to arise, while looking at the instructions.
The more hardware mathematicians, logicians, and classical computer engineering nerds on sci will probably join this discussion to explain in some terms how the instructions can be generalized or pre-determined with raw mathematics, but when you conceptualize the practical ISA and behavior on the board...
The exact same questions come back up.
You have to choose what these inputs and outputs end up meaning, relative to the instructions you're executing.
Once you add full QM fuzzy states to the mix, even simple NOT, AND, OR, become monstrous jekyll and hydes of their previous selves.
In theory, you can DeMorgan these back down, to binary terms, but that looks like a novel by that point, more than a simple operation.
There have been peer reviewed papers that state this DeMorgan breakdown remains possible no matter what, but then there have ALSO been published papers that refute the claim.
Good luck making a judgment when quantum computing is at this stage. I don't believe consensus has a solid answer at this point, just a "most likely" situation.
