Manu: saving work in the theory section
This commit is contained in:
Emmanuel Fromager
parent
7262a5aabd
commit
6bba47ef90
|
|
@ -19,6 +19,7 @@
|
|||
\newcommand{\cloclo}[1]{\textcolor{purple}{#1}}
|
||||
\newcommand{\bruno}[1]{\textcolor{blue}{Bruno: #1}}
|
||||
\newcommand{\manu}[1]{\textcolor{magenta}{Manu: #1}}
|
||||
\newcommand{\manuf}[1]{\textcolor{magenta}{#1}}
|
||||
\newcommand{\trashPFL}[1]{\textcolor{red}{\sout{#1}}}
|
||||
\newcommand{\trashCM}[1]{\textcolor{purple}{\sout{#1}}}
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -46,6 +47,7 @@
|
|||
\newcommand{\hWee}{\Hat{W}_\text{ee}}
|
||||
\newcommand{\hGam}[1]{\Hat{\Gamma}^{#1}}
|
||||
\newcommand{\hgam}[1]{\Hat{\gamma}^{#1}}
|
||||
\newcommand{\hgamdens}[1]{\Hat{\gamma}^{#1}[n]}
|
||||
\newcommand{\bH}{\boldsymbol{H}}
|
||||
\newcommand{\hVne}{\Hat{V}_\text{ne}}
|
||||
\newcommand{\vne}{v_\text{ne}}
|
||||
|
|
@ -120,6 +122,11 @@
|
|||
\newcommand{\UL}{Instituut-Lorentz, Universiteit Leiden, P.O.~Box 9506, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands}
|
||||
\newcommand{\VU}{Division of Theoretical Chemistry, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1083, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands}
|
||||
|
||||
%%% added by Manu %%%
|
||||
\newcommand{\beq}{\begin{eqnarray}}
|
||||
\newcommand{\eeq}{\end{eqnarray}}
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{document}
|
||||
|
||||
\title{Weight Dependence of Local Exchange-Correlation Functionals in Ensemble Density-Functional Theory: Double Excitations in Two-Electron Systems}
|
||||
|
|
@ -213,13 +220,21 @@ semi-empirical as she used experimental excitation energies. It would be
|
|||
fair to cite her paper. There is also this paper [Journal of Molecular
|
||||
Structure (Theochem) 571 (2001) 153-161] that I never really understood
|
||||
but they tried something}.
|
||||
The present contribution is a small step towards this goal.
|
||||
The present contribution is a small \manu{too modest I think. ``paves
|
||||
the way towards ...'' or something like that} step towards this goal.
|
||||
|
||||
When one talks about constructing functionals, the local-density approximation (LDA) is never far away.
|
||||
When one talks about constructing functionals, the local-density
|
||||
approximation (LDA) is never far away \manu{too ``oral'' style I think}.
|
||||
The LDA, as we know it, is based on the uniform electron gas (UEG) also known as jellium, an hypothetical infinite substance where an infinite number of electrons ``bathe'' in a (uniform) positively-charged jelly. \cite{Loos_2016}
|
||||
Although the Hohenberg--Kohn theorems \cite{Hohenberg_1964} are here to provide firm theoretical grounds to DFT, modern KS-DFT rests largely on the presumed similarity between this hypothetical UEG and the electronic behaviour in a real system. \cite{Kohn_1965}
|
||||
However, Loos and Gill have recently shown that there exists other UEGs which contain finite numbers of electrons (more like in a molecule), \cite{Loos_2011b,Gill_2012} and that they can be exploited to construct LDA functionals. \cite{Loos_2014a,Loos_2014b,Loos_2017a}
|
||||
Electrons restricted to remain on the surface of a $\cD$-sphere (where $\cD$ is the dimensionality of the surface of the sphere) are an example of finite UEGs (FUEGs). \cite{Loos_2011b}
|
||||
\manu{It goes much too fast here. One should make a clear distinction
|
||||
between your previous work with Peter on the ground-state theory. Then
|
||||
we should refer to our latest work where GOK-DFT is applied
|
||||
to ringium. In the present work we extend the approach to glomium. As we
|
||||
did in our previous work we should motivate the use of FUEGs for
|
||||
developing weight-dependent functionals.}
|
||||
In particular, we combine these FUEGs with the usual infinite UEG (IUEG) to construct a weigh-dependent LDA correlation functional for ensembles, which is specifically designed to compute double excitations within GOK-DFT, and automatically incorporates the infamous ensemble derivative contribution to the excitation energies through its explicit ensemble weight dependence. \cite{Levy_1995, Perdew_1983}
|
||||
|
||||
The paper is organised as follows.
|
||||
|
|
@ -236,24 +251,33 @@ Unless otherwise stated, atomic units are used throughout.
|
|||
\label{sec:theo}
|
||||
|
||||
Let us consider a GOK ensemble of $\nEns$ electronic states with individual energies $\E{}{(0)} \le \ldots \le \E{}{(\nEns-1)}$, and (normalised) monotonically decreasing weights $\bw = (\ew{0},\ldots,\ew{M-1})$, \ie, $\sum_{I=0}^{\nEns-1} \ew{I} = 1$, and $\ew{0} \ge \ldots \ge \ew{\nEns-1}$.
|
||||
\manu{For clarity, I usually exclude $\ew{0}$ from $\bw$ so that $\bw$
|
||||
only contains the weights that are allowed to vary independently. One
|
||||
should write explicitly $\ew{0}=1-\sum_{I=1}^{\nEns-1} \ew{I}$ and
|
||||
define $\bw$ as $\bw = (\ew{1},\ldots,\ew{M-1})$}
|
||||
The corresponding ensemble energy
|
||||
\begin{equation}
|
||||
\E{}{\bw} = \sum_{I=0}^{\nEns-1} \ew{I} \E{}{(I)}
|
||||
\end{equation}
|
||||
fulfils the variational principle
|
||||
fulfils \manu{can be obtained from?} the variational principle
|
||||
as follows\cite{Gross_1988a}
|
||||
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:ens_energy}
|
||||
\E{}{\bw} = \min_{\hGam{\bw}} \Tr[\hGam{\bw} \hH],
|
||||
\end{eqnarray}
|
||||
where $\hH = \hT + \hWee + \hVne$ contains the kinetic, electron-electron and nuclei-electron interaction potential operators, respectively, $\Tr$ denotes the trace and $\hGam{\bw}$ is a trial density matrix of the form
|
||||
where $\hH = \hT + \hWee + \hVne$ contains the kinetic,
|
||||
electron-electron and nuclei-electron interaction potential operators,
|
||||
respectively, $\Tr$ denotes the trace and $\hGam{\bw}$ is a trial
|
||||
density matrix operator of the form
|
||||
\begin{eqnarray}
|
||||
\hGam{\bw} = \sum_{I=0}^{\nEns - 1} \ew{I} \dyad*{\overline{\Psi}^{(I)}},
|
||||
\end{eqnarray}
|
||||
where $\lbrace \overline{\Psi}^{(I)} \rbrace_{0 \le I \le \nEns-1}$ is a set of $\nEns$ orthonormal trial wave functions.
|
||||
The lower bound of Eq.~\eqref{eq:ens_energy} is reached when the set of wave functions correspond to the exact eigenstates of $\hH$, \ie, $\lbrace \overline{\Psi}^{(I)} \rbrace_{0 \le I \le \nEns-1} = \lbrace \Psi^{(I)} \rbrace_{0 \le I \le \nEns-1}$.
|
||||
Multiplet degeneracies can be easily handled by assigning the same weight to the degenerate states.
|
||||
One of the key feature of the GOK ensemble is that individual excitation energies are extracted from the ensemble energy via differentiation with respect to individual weights:
|
||||
\begin{equation}
|
||||
Multiplet degeneracies can be easily handled by assigning the same
|
||||
weight to the degenerate states \cite{Gross_1988b}.
|
||||
One of the key feature of the GOK ensemble is that individual excitation
|
||||
energies can be extracted from the ensemble energy via differentiation with respect to individual weights:
|
||||
\begin{equation}\label{eq:diff_Ew}
|
||||
\pdv{\E{}{\bw}}{\ew{I}} = \E{}{(I)} - \E{}{(0)} = \Ex{}{(I)}.
|
||||
\end{equation}
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -264,39 +288,137 @@ Turning to GOK-DFT, the extension of the Hohenberg--Kohn theorem to ensembles al
|
|||
\end{equation}
|
||||
where $\vne(\br{})$ is the external potential and $\F{}{\bw}[\n{}{}]$ is the universal ensemble functional
|
||||
(the weight-dependent analog of the Hohenberg--Kohn universal functional for ensembles).
|
||||
In the KS formulation, this functional is decomposed as
|
||||
In the KS formulation, this functional can be decomposed as
|
||||
\begin{equation}
|
||||
\F{}{\bw}[\n{}{}]
|
||||
= \Ts{\bw}[\n{}{}] + \E{\Hxc}{\bw}[\n{}{}]
|
||||
= \Tr[ \hgam{\bw} \hT ] + \Tr[ \hgam{\bw} \hWee ],
|
||||
\end{equation}
|
||||
\manu{The above equation is wrong (the correlation is missing) and the
|
||||
notations are ambiguous. I should also say that Tim does not like the
|
||||
original separation into H and xc. I propose the following reformulation
|
||||
to get everyone satisfied. I also reorganized the theory for clarity.
|
||||
\begin{equation}\label{eq:FGOK_decomp}
|
||||
\F{}{\bw}[\n{}{}]
|
||||
= \Tr[ \hgamdens{\bw} \hT ]+ \E{\Ha}{}[\n{}{}]+\E{\xc}{\bw}[\n{}{}],
|
||||
\end{equation}
|
||||
}
|
||||
where
|
||||
$\Ts{\bw}[\n{}{}]$ is the noninteracting ensemble kinetic energy functional,
|
||||
\manuf{$\Tr[ \hgamdens{\bw} \hT ]=\Ts{\bw}[\n{}{}]$} is the noninteracting ensemble kinetic energy functional,
|
||||
\begin{equation}
|
||||
\hgam{\bw} = \sum_{I=0}^{\nEns-1} \ew{I} \dyad{\Det{I}{\bw}}
|
||||
\hgam{\bw}[n] = \sum_{I=0}^{\nEns-1} \ew{I} \dyad{\Det{I}{\bw}[n]}
|
||||
\end{equation}
|
||||
is the density matrix operator, $\lbrace \Det{I}{\bw} \rbrace_{0 \le I \le \nEns-1}$ are single-determinant wave functions (or configuration state functions) built with KS orbitals $\lbrace \MO{p}{\bw}(\br{}) \rbrace_{1 \le p \le \nOrb}$, and
|
||||
is the \manuf{KS density-functional} density matrix operator, and $\lbrace
|
||||
\Det{I}{\bw}[n] \rbrace_{0 \le I \le \nEns-1}$ are single-determinant
|
||||
wave functions (or configuration state functions). \manuf{Their
|
||||
dependence on the density
|
||||
is determined from the ensemble density
|
||||
constraint
|
||||
\begin{equation}
|
||||
\label{eq:exc_def}
|
||||
\begin{split}
|
||||
\E{\Hxc}{\bw}[\n{}{}]
|
||||
& = \E{\Ha}{}[\n{}{}] + \E{\xc}{\bw}[\n{}{}]
|
||||
\\
|
||||
& = \frac{1}{2} \iint \frac{\n{}{}(\br{}) \n{}{}(\br{}')}{\abs{\br{}-\br{}'}} d\br{} d\br{}'
|
||||
+ \int \e{\xc}{\bw}(\n{}{}(\br{})) \n{}{}(\br{}) d\br{}
|
||||
\end{split}
|
||||
\sum_{I=0}^{\nEns-1} \ew{I} n_{\Det{I}{\bw}[n]}(\br)=n(\br).
|
||||
\end{equation}
|
||||
is the ensemble Hartree-exchange-correlation (Hxc) functional.
|
||||
Note that the weight-independent Hartree functional $\E{\Ha}{}[\n{}{}]$ causes the infamous ghost-interaction error \cite{Gidopoulos_2002, Pastorczak_2014, Alam_2016, Alam_2017, Gould_2017} in eDFT, which is supposed to be cancelled by the weight-dependent xc functional $\E{\xc}{\bw}[\n{}{}]$.
|
||||
Note that the original decomposition \cite{Gross_1988b} shown in Eq.~(\ref{eq:FGOK_decomp}), where the
|
||||
conventional (weight-independent) Hartree functional
|
||||
\beq
|
||||
\E{\Ha}{}[\n{}{}]=\frac{1}{2} \iint \frac{\n{}{}(\br{}) \n{}{}(\br{}')}{\abs{\br{}-\br{}'}} d\br{} d\br{}'
|
||||
\eeq
|
||||
is separated
|
||||
from the (weight-dependent) exchange-correlation (xc) functional, is
|
||||
formally exact. In practice, the use of such a decomposition might be
|
||||
problematic as inserting an ensemble density into $\E{\Ha}{}[\n{}{}]$
|
||||
causes the infamous ghost-interaction error \cite{Gidopoulos_2002,
|
||||
Pastorczak_2014, Alam_2016, Alam_2017, Gould_2017}. The latter should in
|
||||
principle be removed by the exchange component of the ensemble xc
|
||||
functional $\E{\xc}{\bw}[\n{}{}]\equiv
|
||||
\E{\ex}{\bw}[\n{}{}]+\E{\co}{\bw}[\n{}{}]$, as readily seen from the
|
||||
exact expression
|
||||
\beq
|
||||
\E{\ex}{\bw}[\n{}{}]=\sum_{I=0}^{\nEns-1} \ew{I}\bra{\Det{I}{\bw}[n]}\hat{W}_{\rm ee}\ket{\Det{I}{\bw}[n]}
|
||||
-\E{\Ha}{}[\n{}{}].
|
||||
\eeq
|
||||
The minimum in Eq.~(\ref{eq:Ew-GOK}) is reached when the density $n$
|
||||
equals the exact ensemble one
|
||||
\beq\label{eq:nw}
|
||||
n^{\bw}(\br)=\sum_{I=0}^{\nEns-1}
|
||||
\ew{I}n_{\Psi_I}(\br).
|
||||
\eeq
|
||||
The minimizing density-functional KS
|
||||
wavefunctions $\left\{\Det{I}{\bw}\left[n^{\bw}\right]\right\}_{0\leq
|
||||
I\leq M-1}$ are constructed from (weight-dependent) KS orbitals
|
||||
$\lbrace \MO{p}{\bw}(\br{}) \rbrace_{1 \le p \le
|
||||
\nOrb}$. The latters are determined by solving the ensemble KS equation
|
||||
\begin{equation}
|
||||
\label{eq:eKS}
|
||||
\qty{ \hHc(\br{}) + \fdv{\E{\Hxc}{\bw}[\n{}{\bw}]}{\n{}{}(\br{})}} \MO{p}{\bw}(\br{}) = \eps{p}{\bw} \MO{p}{\bw}(\br{}),
|
||||
\end{equation}
|
||||
where $\hHc(\br{}) = -\nabla^2/2 + \vne(\br{})$, and
|
||||
\begin{equation}
|
||||
\fdv{\E{\Hxc}{\bw}[\n{}{}]}{\n{}{}(\br{})}
|
||||
=
|
||||
\int \frac{\n{}{}(\br{}')}{\abs{\br{}-\br{}'}} d\br{}'
|
||||
%\fdv{\E{\Ha}{}[\n{}{}]}{\n{}{}(\br{})}
|
||||
+ \fdv{\E{\xc}{\bw}[\n{}{}]}{\n{}{}(\br{})}.
|
||||
\end{equation}
|
||||
The ensemble density can be obtained directly (and exactly, if no
|
||||
approximation is made) from those orbitals:
|
||||
\beq
|
||||
\n{}{\bw}(\br{})=\sum_{I=0}^{\nEns-1} \ew{I}\left(\sum_{p}^{\nOrb}
|
||||
\ON{p}{(I)} [\MO{p}{\bw}(\br{})]^2\right),
|
||||
\eeq
|
||||
where $\ON{p}{(I)}$ denotes the occupation of $\MO{p}{\bw}(\br{})$ in
|
||||
the $I$th KS wave function $\Det{I}{\bw}\left[n^{\bw}\right]$. Turning
|
||||
to the excitation energies, they can be extracted from the
|
||||
density-functional ensemble as follows [see Eqs. ({\ref{eq:diff_Ew}})
|
||||
and ({\ref{eq:Ew-GOK}}) and Refs.
|
||||
\cite{Gross_1988b,Deur_2019}]:
|
||||
\beq
|
||||
\label{eq:dEdw}
|
||||
\Omega^{(I)}= \Eps{I}{\bw} - \Eps{0}{\bw} + \left. \pdv{\E{\xc}{\bw}[\n{}{}]}{\ew{I}} \right|_{\n{}{} = \n{}{\bw}},
|
||||
\eeq
|
||||
where
|
||||
\begin{equation}
|
||||
\label{eq:KS-energy}
|
||||
\Eps{I}{\bw} = \sum_{p}^{\nOrb} \ON{p}{(I)} \eps{p}{\bw}
|
||||
\end{equation}
|
||||
is the energy of the $I$th KS state.
|
||||
}%%%%%% end manuf
|
||||
|
||||
From the GOK-DFT ensemble energy expression in Eq.~\eqref{eq:Ew-GOK}, we obtain \cite{Gross_1988b,Deur_2019}
|
||||
Equation \eqref{eq:dEdw} is our working equation for computing excitation energies from a practical point of view.
|
||||
Note that the individual KS densities
|
||||
$\n{\Det{I}{\bw}\left[n^{\bw}\right]}{}(\br{})=\sum_{p}^{\nOrb}
|
||||
\ON{p}{(I)} [\MO{p}{\bw}(\br{})]^2$ do
|
||||
not necessarily match the \textit{exact} (interacting) individual-state densities as the non-interacting KS ensemble is expected to reproduce the true interacting ensemble density $\n{}{\bw}(\br{})$ defined in Eq.~\eqref{eq:nw}, and not each individual density.
|
||||
Nevertheless, these densities can still be extracted in principle exactly from the KS ensemble as shown by Fromager. \cite{Fromager_2020}
|
||||
|
||||
\manuf{
|
||||
In the following, we will work at the (weight-dependent) LDA
|
||||
level of approximation, \ie
|
||||
\beq
|
||||
\E{\xc}{\bw}[\n{}{}]
|
||||
&\overset{\rm LDA}{\approx}&
|
||||
\int \e{\xc}{\bw}(\n{}{}(\br{})) \n{}{}(\br{}) d\br{}
|
||||
\\
|
||||
\fdv{\E{\xc}{\bw}[\n{}{}]}{\n{}{}(\br{})}
|
||||
&\overset{\rm LDA}{\approx}&
|
||||
\left. \pdv{\e{\xc}{\bw{}}(\n{}{})}{\n{}{}} \right|_{\n{}{} = \n{}{}(\br{})} \n{}{}(\br{}) + \e{\xc}{\bw{}}(\n{}{}(\br{})).
|
||||
\eeq
|
||||
In the following, we adopt the usual decomposition, and write down the weight-dependent xc functional as
|
||||
\begin{equation}
|
||||
\e{\xc}{\ew{}}(\n{}{}) = \e{\ex}{\ew{}}(\n{}{}) + \e{\co}{\ew{}}(\n{}{}),
|
||||
\end{equation}
|
||||
where $\e{\ex}{\ew{}}(\n{}{})$ and $\e{\co}{\ew{}}(\n{}{})$ are the weight-dependent exchange and correlation functionals, respectively.
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
||||
%%%%%%% Manu: stuff that I removed from the first version %%%%%
|
||||
\iffalse%%%%
|
||||
\begin{equation}
|
||||
\begin{split}
|
||||
\label{eq:dEdw}
|
||||
\pdv{\E{}{\bw}}{\ew{I}}
|
||||
& = \E{}{(I)} - \E{}{(0)}
|
||||
\\
|
||||
& = \Eps{I}{\bw} - \Eps{0}{\bw} + \left. \pdv{\E{\xc}{\bw}[\n{}{}]}{\ew{I}} \right|_{\n{}{} = \n{}{\bw}(\br{})},
|
||||
& = \Eps{I}{\bw} - \Eps{0}{\bw} + \left. \pdv{\E{\xc}{\bw}[\n{}{}]}{\ew{I}} \right|_{\n{}{} = \n{}{\bw}},
|
||||
\end{split}
|
||||
\end{equation}
|
||||
where
|
||||
|
|
@ -308,16 +430,30 @@ where
|
|||
\n{\Det{I}{\bw}}{}(\br{}) & = \sum_{p}^{\nOrb} \ON{p}{(I)} [\MO{p}{\bw}(\br{})]^2
|
||||
\end{align}
|
||||
are the ensemble and individual one-electron densities, respectively,
|
||||
|
||||
and
|
||||
\begin{equation}
|
||||
\label{eq:KS-energy}
|
||||
\Eps{I}{\bw} = \sum_{p}^{\nOrb} \ON{p}{(I)} \eps{p}{\bw}
|
||||
\label{eq:exc_def}
|
||||
\begin{split}
|
||||
\E{\Hxc}{\bw}[\n{}{}]
|
||||
& = \E{\Ha}{}[\n{}{}] + \E{\xc}{\bw}[\n{}{}]
|
||||
\\
|
||||
& = \frac{1}{2} \iint \frac{\n{}{}(\br{}) \n{}{}(\br{}')}{\abs{\br{}-\br{}'}} d\br{} d\br{}'
|
||||
+ \int \e{\xc}{\bw}(\n{}{}(\br{})) \n{}{}(\br{}) d\br{}
|
||||
\end{split}
|
||||
\end{equation}
|
||||
is the ensemble Hartree-exchange-correlation (Hxc) functional.
|
||||
Note that the weight-independent Hartree functional $\E{\Ha}{}[\n{}{}]$
|
||||
|
||||
is the weight-dependent KS energy of state $I$, and $\eps{p}{\bw}$ is the KS orbital energy associated with $\MO{p}{\bw}(\br{})$ [$\ON{p}{(I)}$ being its occupancy for the state $I$].
|
||||
The latters are determined by solving the ensemble KS equation
|
||||
\begin{equation}
|
||||
\label{eq:eKS}
|
||||
\qty{ \hHc(\br{}) + \fdv{\E{\Hxc}{\bw}[\n{}{\bw}]}{\n{}{}(\br{})}} \MO{p}{\bw}(\br{}) = \eps{p}{\bw} \MO{p}{\bw}(\br{}),
|
||||
\end{equation}
|
||||
built with KS orbitals $\lbrace \MO{p}{\bw}(\br{}) \rbrace_{1 \le p \le
|
||||
\nOrb}$,
|
||||
|
||||
where $\hHc(\br{}) = -\nabla^2/2 + \vne(\br{})$, and
|
||||
\begin{equation}
|
||||
\fdv{\E{\Hxc}{\bw}[\n{}{}]}{\n{}{}(\br{})}
|
||||
|
|
@ -333,16 +469,8 @@ is the Hxc potential, with
|
|||
& = \left. \pdv{\e{\xc}{\bw{}}(\n{}{})}{\n{}{}} \right|_{\n{}{} = \n{}{}(\br{})} \n{}{}(\br{}) + \e{\xc}{\bw{}}(\n{}{}(\br{})).
|
||||
\end{align}
|
||||
\end{subequations}
|
||||
Equation \eqref{eq:dEdw} is our working equation for computing excitation energies from a practical point of view.
|
||||
Note that the individual densities $\n{\Det{I}{\bw}}{}(\br{})$ defined in Eq.~\eqref{eq:nI} do not match the \textit{exact} individual-state densities as the non-interacting KS ensemble is expected to reproduce the true interacting ensemble density $\n{}{\bw}(\br{})$ defined in Eq.~\eqref{eq:nw}, and not each individual density.
|
||||
Nevertheless, these densities can still be extracted in principle exactly from the KS ensemble as shown by Fromager. \cite{Fromager_2020}
|
||||
|
||||
In the following, we adopt the usual decomposition, and write down the weight-dependent xc functional as
|
||||
\begin{equation}
|
||||
\e{\xc}{\ew{}}(\n{}{}) = \e{\ex}{\ew{}}(\n{}{}) + \e{\co}{\ew{}}(\n{}{}),
|
||||
\end{equation}
|
||||
where $\e{\ex}{\ew{}}(\n{}{})$ and $\e{\co}{\ew{}}(\n{}{})$ are the weight-dependent exchange and correlation functionals, respectively.
|
||||
|
||||
%%%%% end stuff removed by Manu %%%%%%
|
||||
\fi%%%%
|
||||
|
||||
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
||||
%%% COMPUTATIONAL DETAILS %%%
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user