Conversation
Benchmark Results (Julia v1)Time benchmarks
Memory benchmarks
|
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #81 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 86.17% 85.63% -0.54%
==========================================
Files 20 20
Lines 2192 2479 +287
==========================================
+ Hits 1889 2123 +234
- Misses 303 356 +53 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
* reorganize product spaces and relation between spaces and symbols * many things * add BlockHilbertSpace, add support for combine_states and split_states to return a list of states * Making changes to fix tests one by one * mainly work on symmetries * fixing tests, defining printing, moving code around * fix tests, handle nested wrappers, add basis_transformation, don't let subregion change the order of states * fix tests, rename atomic_group to symbolic_group, use NCMul in apply_local_operators * remove files, simplify floquet, update test manifest * update examples * tet open system
|
I’m wondering if it would make sense to introduce a |
|
The reason I did it this way is to mirror the behaviour of the hilbert spaces, where fermionic spaces can combine into a cluster. For bosons and spins the spaces will not combine, so I let the symbolic operators also be completely independent. However, one can add a convenience macro, as I have done for spins. There one can do @spin S
# or
@spins S 1:4where the latter defines S as a vector of symbolic spins so you can index it similarly to the fermion field. Maybe it should be a dictionary instead, so that I don't see a good reason to define bosonic and spin fields right now, but if we add clusters of bosons and spins, it would make sense. |
|
Can I add more stuff here, or do you want to merge first? |
|
Go ahead and add stuff. |
No description provided.