On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 8:43 AM, Brian Granger <elliso...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 12:12 AM, Aaron S. Meurer <asmeu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mar 23, 2011, at 10:20 PM, Tim Lahey wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I've been thinking about GSoC and looking at the various ideas people have >>> been posting. By the way, I'd like to see perturbation theory included in >>> general (i.e., not just for quantum mechanics) since it's used in stability >>> analysis. >> >> Yes definitely. Another thing that should not be implemented only in >> physics. > > My only hesitancy is that perturbation *theories* tend to be very > specific to the equations you are solving. For example, even within > quantum mechanics, there are probably a dozen different perturbation > theories. The reason for this is that: > > * it is non-trivial to identify and fully solve the non-perturbed system. > * Writing a perturbation series that converges at all or quickly is > not an easy task. > > I don't disagree that it would be nice to have this, but I think it is > not the place to *start* with perturbation theory for a GSoC project. > I am biased, but the various quantum perturbation theories are well > known and would be a good place for starting to identify the common > aspects of all perturbation theories (similar to how the operators, > commutators, etc. in physics.quantum will end up doing).
Exactly. Instead of a top down approach, a better way is to start bottom up, and implement it specifically for QM, get it working, and then if there is interest and if it is possible at all, it can be extended to other fields. Ondrej -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy" group. To post to this group, send email to sympy@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sympy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sympy?hl=en.
