Re: Re: Grassmann Calculus / Indexed Objects / Simplify

*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net*Subject*: [mg60870] Re: [mg60860] Re: [mg60763] Grassmann Calculus / Indexed Objects / Simplify*From*: "David Park" <djmp at earthlink.net>*Date*: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 02:55:45 -0400 (EDT)*Sender*: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com

Robert, I responded to you privately and sent a .pdf file showing the kind of manipulation that you want, but apparently you never received it. I believe the manipulations you want can be done with the Tensorial tensor calculus package on the Mathematica page of my web site below. David Park djmp at earthlink.net http://home.earthlink.net/~djmp/ From: Robert Schoefbeck [mailto:schoefbeck at hep.itp.tuwien.ac.at] To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net thank you for your answer, i already get the feeling that this is going to be involved. On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, Carl K. Woll wrote: > Robert Schoefbeck wrote: > > Hello all, > > > > I want to implement superspace calculations in a mathematica package. > > I define (code below) grassmannian theta-variables with upper and lower, > > dotted and undotted indices. Having declared (anti)- commutativity > > with DeclareOdd i use myTimes to handle multiplications of Superfields. > > > > Dummy indices are generated by use of Unique[]. All this multiplication > > stuff works pretty well but looking at the one but last output i have > > the problem that contractions with different dummies are not recognized > > as equal. > > > > My questions are: Is there a way to tell mathematica to keep the > > information that indices are equal but forgetting about the name of the > > dummy? > > > > The usual approach to your problem is to define a canonicalization function > which takes a monomial and rewrites the indices in the monomial in a > standard form. Unfortunately, there is no good quick algorithm to compute > this standard form. Your problem is complicated by the fact that indices can > be both upper or lower, so not only the names of the indices but there > position will also need to be put in canonical form. If you have > (anti-)symmetries in your indices, even more complexities occur. > > Ignoring the upper/lower indices and symmetries, one simple but slow > algorithm to convert a monomial into a canonical form is: > > 1. Isolate the tensor quantities in the monomial. > 2. Extract the indices. > 3. Rename the indices (e.g., if there are 5 indices, call them i_1, i_2, > ..., i_5). > 4. Generate a monomial for each of the possible permutations of the indices. > 5. Sort these monomials, and pick the first one. oh dear. i looked for this forum to find a way preventing this :) > > I'd also like to pull indices with metrics, something like > > > > e[a,b]theta[b]=theta[a] > > > > How should i implement the defining relations for index pulling > > (i have vector, and chiral/antichiral spinor indices, color indices and > > so on) such that 1) Simplify can handle them? > > > > Instead of using Simplify, why not just use replacement rules? > > e[a,b]theta[b] /. e[a_,b_] g_?(!FreeQ[#,a|b]) :> If[FreeQ[g,b], g/.a->b, > g/.b->a] some expressions are equal but look different (i posted an example in a message that has not yet appeared in the forum) and therefore i need a routine which flexibly substitutes up- and down values for the symbols involved. (my example involves a minus sign produced by index flipping of the symplectic spinor indices) > > any help is welcome, does maybe someone have a sample application of how > > to handle indices? > > i'd also appreciate any comment on the code. > > > > robert schoefbeck > > > > > > > > > > short description: > > > > OddPQ tests whether an object has odd parity or not > > > > mytimes handles ,multiplications > > > > Instead of mytimes, why not use ** or one of the other Infix symbols with no > definitions like CircleTimes? It will look prettier, which should enhance > comprehensibility. i will do that. thank you very much. Robert Schoefbeck