Timeline for General expression for fermionic creation operator subspace
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| yesterday | vote | accept | Lucas Baldo | ||
| S Apr 29 at 9:06 | history | bounty ended | CommunityBot | ||
| S Apr 29 at 9:06 | history | notice removed | CommunityBot | ||
| Apr 25 at 20:34 | comment | added | hft | One answer was deleted, one was added, and one was edited. Both currently-existing answers are now helpful, IMO. | |
| Apr 25 at 20:12 | answer | added | Gec | timeline score: 3 | |
| Apr 25 at 17:05 | comment | added | Lucas Baldo | @hft, could you elaborate on why you consider the answers below insufficient? | |
| Apr 25 at 16:37 | comment | added | hft | It is true for $N=1$ and $N=2$. I think it may be true in general, but I do not think that either of the two answer presented yet prove it... | |
| Apr 24 at 7:08 | comment | added | Lucas Baldo | It should map $H_n\rightarrow H_{n+1}$ for all $n$, and then map $H_N\rightarrow 0$ | |
| Apr 23 at 18:20 | answer | added | Nandagopal Manoj | timeline score: 2 | |
| Apr 23 at 17:35 | comment | added | Gec | To answer your question, will it be enough to present any operator that maps $H_n\rightarrow H_{n+1}$ in some specific way and no matter how it acts on other subspaces, or does this operator have to satisfy additional conditions, such as mapping any subspace $H_{n'}$ for $n'\neq n$ to zero? | |
| S Apr 21 at 7:52 | history | bounty started | Lucas Baldo | ||
| S Apr 21 at 7:52 | history | notice added | Lucas Baldo | Draw attention | |
| Apr 17 at 18:40 | history | edited | Lucas Baldo | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
clarified difference between n and N
|
| Apr 17 at 18:39 | comment | added | Lucas Baldo | Thanks for the tip! | |
| Apr 17 at 18:31 | comment | added | Gec | It is probably better to choose different notations for the number of fermionic modes and the number of fermions. | |
| Apr 17 at 17:31 | history | asked | Lucas Baldo | CC BY-SA 4.0 |