[GiNaC-devel] ncmul regression [Was: Re: [GiNaC-cvs] ginac flags.h mul.cpp power.cpp]

[Vladimir V. Kisil]

Hello, Alexei,

On 10/16/07, Alexei Sheplyakov <varg at theor.jinr.ru> wrote:

> I've tried to fix them in the same way as mul::expand (see the patch in
> the end of this mail), but this somehow breaks the clifford class,

Actually, the patch introduces problems which are not specific to
clifford.cpp. In the self-check errors start from color.cpp, see the
relevant portion of check/exams.out file below. Could your patch
breaks simplification of indexed object somehow?

By the way, I failed to apply your patch through the command

patch -p1 < p.diff

What is the correct way to apply it?

Best wishes,
Vladimir

----------indexed objects:
(no output)
----------color objects:
simplify_indexed(T.a*T.b*T.c*T.k*T.a*T.k*T.c*T.b)--1/162*ONE
erroneously returned -7/18*ONE instead of 0
----------clifford objects:
(-4*D*ldotq+8*ldotq) - (-4*D*ldotq+4*D*m^2+8*ldotq-4*l^2*D+8*l^2)
erroneously returned -4*D*m^2+4*l^2*D-8*l^2 instead of 0
(4*ldotq*q^2) - (4*m^2*q^2+8*ldotq^2-4*l^2*q^2+4*ldotq*q^2)
erroneously returned -4*m^2*q^2-8*ldotq^2+4*l^2*q^2 instead of 0
(4*D*eta~rho~lam*eta~sig~nu-4*D*eta~rho~nu*eta~sig~lam-8*eta~nu~lam*eta~sig~rho+8*eta~rho~lam*eta~sig~nu-8*eta~rho~nu*eta~sig~lam-4*D*eta~nu~lam*eta~sig~rho)
- (0) erroneously returned
4*D*eta~rho~lam*eta~sig~nu-4*D*eta~rho~nu*eta~sig~lam-8*eta~nu~lam*eta~sig~rho+8*eta~rho~lam*eta~sig~nu-8*eta~rho~nu*eta~sig~lam-4*D*eta~nu~lam*eta~sig~rho
instead of 0
(16*eta~sig~rho-8*D*eta~sig~rho) - (0) erroneously returned
16*eta~sig~rho-8*D*eta~sig~rho instead of 0
(4*D^2*eta~sig~rho+16*eta~sig~rho) - (0) erroneously returned
4*D^2*eta~sig~rho+16*eta~sig~rho instead of 0
simplify_indexed(e~mu*e~nu*e.nu*e.mu) - (4*ONE) erroneously returned
2*(e~mu*e~nu)*[[-1,0,0,0],[0,1,0,0],[0,0,1,0],[0,0,0,1]].mu.nu instead
of 0
simplify_indexed(e~mu*e~nu*e.mu*e.nu) -
(2*(e~mu*e~nu)*[[-1,0,0,0],[0,1,0,0],[0,0,1,0],[0,0,0,1]].mu.nu-4*ONE)
erroneously returned -8*ONE instead of 0
simplify_indexed(e.mu*e~nu*e~mu*e.nu) -
(-4*ONE+2*(e.mu*e.nu)*[[-1,0,0,0],[0,1,0,0],[0,0,1,0],[0,0,0,1]]~nu~mu)
erroneously returned -8*ONE instead of 0
simplify_indexed((4*ONE+2*(e~nu*e~rho)*[[-1,0,0,0],[0,1,0,0],[0,0,1,0],[0,0,0,1]].nu.rho)*e~mu+2*(e~nu*e~rho*e~mu)*[[-1,0,0,0],[0,1,0,0],[0,0,1,0],[0,0,0,1]].nu.rho-4*e.nu*[[-1,0,0,0],[0,1,0,0],[0,0,1,0],[0,0,0,1]]~mu~nu)
- (-4*e~rho*[[-1,0,0,0],[0,1,0,0],[0,0,1,0],[0,0,0,1]]~mu.rho+4*e~nu*[[-1,0,0,0],[0,1,0,0],[0,0,1,0],[0,0,0,1]]~mu.rho*[[-1,0,0,0],[0,1,0,0],[0,0,1,0],[0,0,0,1]].nu~rho+4*e~mu-4*e~nu*[[-1,0,0,0],[0,1,0,0],[0,0,1,0],[0,0,0,1]]~mu.nu)
erroneously returned 8*e.1 instead of 0 for mu=1
simplify_indexed((4*ONE+2*(e~nu*e~rho)*[[-1,0,0,0],[0,1,0,0],[0,0,1,0],[0,0,0,1]].nu.rho)*e~mu+2*(e~nu*e~rho*e~mu)*[[-1,0,0,0],[0,1,0,0],[0,0,1,0],[0,0,0,1]].nu.rho-4*e.nu*[[-1,0,0,0],[0,1,0,0],[0,0,1,0],[0,0,0,1]]~mu~nu)
- (-4*e~rho*[[-1,0,0,0],[0,1,0,0],[0,0,1,0],[0,0,0,1]]~mu.rho+4*e~nu*[[-1,0,0,0],[0,1,0,0],[0,0,1,0],[0,0,0,1]]~mu.rho*[[-1,0,0,0],[0,1,0,0],[0,0,1,0],[0,0,0,1]].nu~rho+4*e~mu-4*e~nu*[[-1,0,0,0],[0,1,0,0],[0,0,1,0],[0,0,0,1]]~mu.nu)
erroneously returned 8*e.1 instead of 0 for mu=1