Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Electron integrals internal format representation #21

Open
gabrielasd opened this issue Nov 4, 2020 · 4 comments
Open

Electron integrals internal format representation #21

gabrielasd opened this issue Nov 4, 2020 · 4 comments
Assignees
Labels
documentation enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@gabrielasd
Copy link
Owner

Rather than verifying the symmetry of the input electron integrals, it might be better to use a helper function that transforms them from the molecular orbital basis to the spinorbital one (for example using the functions defined by Michael in the tools.py file).
EOM code's documentation must clearly state in what format the electron integrlas are expected to be inputted, being the users responsibility to provide the right input.

@gabrielasd gabrielasd added enhancement New feature or request documentation labels Nov 4, 2020
@gabrielasd gabrielasd self-assigned this Nov 4, 2020
@msricher
Copy link
Collaborator

msricher commented Nov 5, 2020

Yeah, maybe some explicit documentation on exactly which integrals we want would be nice. Specifically, it is physicist-notation, generalized, antisymmetric, molecular integrals.

@msricher
Copy link
Collaborator

msricher commented Nov 5, 2020

I think you can reproduce one of the tables from Helgaker, or Sherrill's notes, which give the definition of integrals,
<i|j> = \int{...}
<ii|jj> = \int{...}
<ii||jj> = \int{...}
etc.

@msricher
Copy link
Collaborator

msricher commented Nov 5, 2020

Actually, after thinking a bit more..

Most programs just specify what their native format, or internal representation, is. You can pass options if you're manually specifying integrals -- either "physicist" or "chemist" notation, and either "symmetric" or "antisymmetric" -- and then the program converts it to whichever format it uses natively.

@gabrielasd
Copy link
Owner Author

Yes, that is a good idea, thanks! :D

@gabrielasd gabrielasd changed the title Remove functional requiremet 3 from SRS Electron integrals internal format representation Oct 9, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
documentation enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants