I am fine with this plan. It will be good to get it in. Brian
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 1:39 PM, Øyvind Jensen <jensen.oyv...@gmail.com>wrote: > > I disabled the failing doctest and pushed a commit to the branch wick3 > in my repo. > > I am also extremely busy, so I am afraid I cannot spend much more time > on this right now. It seems though, that from a user perspective, the > missing documentation strings are not that important. And from a > hacking perspective most the methods are either standard sympy methods > or quite short and self explaining. > > Since it appears nobody has time to spend right now, let's look into > Brians suggestions in a later revision of the module. At least the > current implementation provides something to compare with for future > iterations. > > Øyvind > > to., 22.10.2009 kl. 13.31 -0700, skrev Ondrej Certik: > > Hi, > > > > I don't have time to finish the doctests myself, but on the other hand > > I don't want to hold this anymore either. The current status is: > > > > $ bin/coverage_doctest.py sympy/physics/secondquant.py > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > sympy/physics/secondquant.py > > > > Missing documentation: > > * canonize(cls, arg) > > * eval(cls, arg) > > * wrap_tuples(*args, **kw_args) > > * symbol(self) > > * upper(self) > > * lower(self) > > * doit(self, **kw_args) > > * eval(cls, i, j) > > * indices_contain_equal_information(self) > > * is_symbolic(self) > > * apply_operator(self, state) > > * apply_operator(self, state) > > * apply_operator(self, state) > > * apply_operator(self, state) > > * apply_operator(self, state) > > * up(self, i) > > * down(self, i) > > * split_commutative_parts(m) > > * canonize(cls, bra, ket) > > * eval(cls, bra, ket) > > * bra(self) > > * ket(self) > > * index(self, state) > > * state(self, i) > > * index(self, state) > > * state(self, i) > > * doit(self,**hints) > > * doit(self, **kw_args) > > * iter_q_annihilators(self) > > * iter_q_creators(self) > > > > > > Missing doctests: > > * eval(cls,symbol, upper, lower) > > * doit(self,**kw_args) > > * apply_Mul(m) > > * apply_operators(e) > > * matrix_rep(op, basis) > > * move(e, i, d) > > * eval(cls, a,b) > > * eval(cls,arg) > > > > SCORE sympy/physics/secondquant.py: 44% (31 of 69) > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > All tests pass except: > > > > _______________________ sympy.physics.secondquant.wicks > ________________________ > > File "/home/ondrej/repos/sympy/sympy/physics/secondquant.py", line > > 2569, in sympy.physics.secondquant.wicks > > Failed example: > > wicks(Fd(p)*(F(q)+F(r)), keep_only_fully_contracted=True) > > Expected: > > KroneckerDelta(_i, _r)*KroneckerDelta(_p, _r) + KroneckerDelta(_i, > > _q)*KroneckerDelta(_p, _q) > > Got: > > KroneckerDelta(_i, _q)*KroneckerDelta(_p, _q) + KroneckerDelta(_i, > > _r)*KroneckerDelta(_p, _r) > > > > ============= tests finished: 341 passed, 1 failed in 6.34 seconds > ============= > > > > > > So this has to be fixed. Rebased patches are in my "wick3" branch at > github. > > > > Let's get these patches in. > > > > Ondrej > > > > On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 2:09 PM, jegerjensen <jensen.oyv...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > And another push... I overlooked the substitution Wicks -> wicks. > > > > > > Øyvind > > > > > > On 18 Okt, 22:51, jegerjensen <jensen.oyv...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> I just pushed some of the trivial fixes to github, please pull. > > >> > > >> Ondrej, I fixed the 'str' variable as well. > > >> > > >> Øyvind > > >> > > >> On 15 Okt, 18:54, Brian Granger <ellisonbg....@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> > On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 2:26 AM, Øyvind Jensen < > jensen.oyv...@gmail.com>wrote: > > >> > > >> > > Brian, thanks for your input! > > >> > > >> > > I will make that Exception baseclass, and raise those > > >> > > NotImplementedErrors. I'll do it the coming weekend. > > >> > > >> > > I really like your idea of implementing the particle/hole stuff on > a > > >> > > higher level, and creating algorithms independent of boson/fermi > > >> > > formalism. That is a great suggestion. However, I think it > should be > > >> > > done in such a way that the user still has a readily available > > >> > > particle/hole formalism. Let's not sacrifice practical usefulness > for > > >> > > programming aesthetics. > > >> > > >> > > Right now the above/below fermi checks take care of a mixture of > things. > > >> > > At least: > > >> > > 1) Test if two indices have overlapping ranges in the > KroneckerDelta > > >> > > implementation + possibly elsewhere (maybe even implicitly!) > > >> > > 2) Normal ordering, contractions > > >> > > 3) Hole/Particle stuff in FermionState > > >> > > 4) Maybe I forget about something > > >> > > >> > > I'm curious to how we could leverage the new assumption system to > factor > > >> > > out the particle/hole stuff. At least 1) seems like a good > candidate > > >> > > for that. > > >> > > >> > > I don't think 3) is that important, as the calculations are > usually > > >> > > applied to operators, not the states directly. > > >> > > >> > > This leaves 2). The algorithms could be made boson/fermion > agnostic by > > >> > > implementing normal ordering and contractions as methods of > > >> > > FermionicOperator and BosonicOperator. Then particle/holes would > still > > >> > > be low-level, but completely encapsulated in FermionicOperator. > What do > > >> > > you think? > > >> > > >> > I think I would love to think about this more today but I have a big > > >> > deadline at 5 pm ;-) > > >> > > >> > I will try to get back to this F, Sat or Sun. > > >> > > >> > Cheers, > > >> > > >> > Brian > > >> > > >> > > Øyvind > > >> > > >> > > on., 14.10.2009 kl. 12.08 -0700, skrev Brian Granger: > > >> > > > Thanks for putting a github branch up. > > >> > > >> > > > I am crazy busy, but I did glance though things a bit... > > >> > > >> > > > * Can you create a base class for all exceptions in secondquant, > like > > >> > > >> > > > class SecondQuantError(Exception): > > >> > > > pass > > >> > > >> > > > and make all other exceptions subclasses of this. > > >> > > >> > > > * Also, what happens if you pass bosonic operators to the new > > >> > > > functions like NO, Wicks. If they don't work for Bosons, they > should > > >> > > > raise a NotImplementedError (unless you want to make them work > for > > >> > > > Bosons ;-)) > > >> > > >> > > > * It looks like the idea of the fermi surface is built into the > > >> > > > fermion operators and states at the lowest level. I have > thought > > >> > > > about this for a few days, and I am not sure this is the best > way of > > >> > > > handling it. I realize the using particles and holes is > extremely > > >> > > > useful for practical calculations, but... > > >> > > >> > > > There are many situations where you want to work with the > fermion > > >> > > > operators, but don't want to think about particles and holes. > The > > >> > > > formalism of second quantization for fermions doesn't need to > assume > > >> > > > anything about particles and holes. > > >> > > >> > > > Having particles and holes built in to the lowest level of the > > >> > > > fermionic implementation means that we can't easily implement > things > > >> > > > like wicks theorem in a general boson/fermion independent > manner. > > >> > > >> > > > Do you think it would be possible to implement the fermionic > stuff in > > >> > > > a way that didn't assume the particle/hole stuff up front, but > that > > >> > > > stuff could be added in a high-level. The situation is similar > for > > >> > > > bosons where you have to do tricks to handle the population of > the > > >> > > > ground state. > > >> > > >> > > > Cheers, > > >> > > >> > > > Brian > > >> > > >> > > > Cheers, > > >> > > >> > > > Brian > > >> > > >> > > > On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 10:58 AM, jegerjensen > > >> > > > <jensen.oyv...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> > > > I implemented lots of doctests, and pushed to my new > github > > >> > > > account: > > >> > > >> > > > git://github.com/jegerjensen/sympy.git > > >> > > >> > > > There is still some doctests missing, but I think all > the > > >> > > > important > > >> > > > stuff is covered. > > >> > > >> > > > Øyvind > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy-patches" group. To post to this group, send email to sympy-patches@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sympy-patches+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sympy-patches?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
