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

Add a charge basis #170

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Jun 26, 2024
Merged

Add a charge basis #170

merged 5 commits into from
Jun 26, 2024

Conversation

amilsted
Copy link
Collaborator

@amilsted amilsted commented Jun 20, 2024

This basis is a truncated U(1) irrep basis intended to represent quantized charge. The charge operator is defined as are the conjugate (shift) operators e^(ikφ) associated with the U(1) degree of freedom φ.

Could do a minor version bump after this as we will export a bunch of new functions.

@amilsted amilsted changed the title Draft: Add a charge basis Add a charge basis Jun 20, 2024
@amilsted amilsted requested a review from Krastanov June 20, 2024 20:42
@Krastanov
Copy link
Collaborator

This looks good to me, but I would really appreciate an example of an interesting Hamiltonian for a system of actual interest dropped somewhere in a docstring, if you have the bandwidth for this. Otherwise I feel someone would see it in the documentation but struggle to think of a situation where they would want to use it.

@Krastanov
Copy link
Collaborator

I restarted one of the tests to see whether codecov would pick things up now that the token is properly set.

@amilsted
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@Krastanov I have added a transmon Hamiltonian as an example (also hooked up the docs).

@Krastanov
Copy link
Collaborator

Thanks! I am in favor of merging!

@amilsted
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@david-pl Are you happy with this?

@amilsted amilsted merged commit 5c31a46 into master Jun 26, 2024
17 checks passed
@amilsted amilsted deleted the charge_basis branch June 26, 2024 18:42
@amilsted
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@Krastanov Any objections to a minor version bump?

@Krastanov
Copy link
Collaborator

not at all -- you never need to ask me that, I am always in favor of quick releases after each PR

@amilsted
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Right, I just meant minor vs. patch. If we do minor, we'll need to bump compat on QO.jl too, but I think it's worth doing when the exported functions change a bunch. For example, this will help me migrate private code to use the charge basis.

@Krastanov
Copy link
Collaborator

Apologies, I misunderstood. Yes, I believe your plan makes sense.

@amilsted
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Ok, great. I will also bump the QO.jl minor version, since it reexports QOB.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants