You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Currently there are some ad-hoc conventions for naming eigenstates of spin operators, such as "Z+", "Z-", "X+", "X-", etc.
We could have a more systematic and general approach, such as:
function (n::StateName"X")(domain)
eigvals, eigvecs =eigen(OpName("X")(domain))
i =findfirst(≈(n.eigval), eigvals)
return eigvecs[:, i]
end
Obviously that isn't ideal from a performance perspective, but that can serve as a naming convention (i.e. naming eigenvectors of an operator after the operator with the eigenvalue stored as a parameter) as well as a generic fallback definition. Then we can specialize in cases where the eigenvectors have closed forms, and/or we can cache commonly used eigenvectors.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Currently there are some ad-hoc conventions for naming eigenstates of spin operators, such as
"Z+"
,"Z-"
,"X+"
,"X-"
, etc.We could have a more systematic and general approach, such as:
Obviously that isn't ideal from a performance perspective, but that can serve as a naming convention (i.e. naming eigenvectors of an operator after the operator with the eigenvalue stored as a parameter) as well as a generic fallback definition. Then we can specialize in cases where the eigenvectors have closed forms, and/or we can cache commonly used eigenvectors.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: