loos/eDFT_FUEG
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Releases Wiki Activity

Manu: saving work

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Emmanuel Fromager 2020-05-08 09:51:49 +02:00
parent 9c9e9f081e
commit 4e25488cfb
1 changed files with 7 additions and 2 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

9
Response_Letter/Response_Letter.tex
View File

@ -185,8 +185,13 @@ that the deviation from linearity of the ensemble energy would be zero.}
{Fig. 2: Why does the crossover point for the 1st excitation curves disappear for $L=8\pi$? } {Fig. 2: Why does the crossover point for the 1st excitation curves disappear for $L=8\pi$? }
\\ \\
\alert{The legend of Fig.~2 was incorrect (the curves were mislabeled), but this has now been corrected. \alert{The legend of Fig.~2 was incorrect (the curves were mislabeled), but this has now been corrected.
In the new Fig.~2 (which is now Fig.~4 in the revised manuscript), this crossover has disappeared and the discussion is much more fluid: In the corrected Fig.~2 (which is now Fig.~4 in the revised
when the weight of a state increases, this state is stabilized while the two others increases in energy (as it should). manuscript), the crossover point occurs for two different states that
belong to two different ensembles. In other words, this point is not
interesting anymore. The discussion of this Figure has become much more fluid:
when the weight of a state increases, this state is stabilized
while the two others increase in energy (as it should). \manu{Well, the
energy of the first excited state still decreases when $w_2$ increases}
The discussion regarding this figure has been modified accordingly.} The discussion regarding this figure has been modified accordingly.}
% \alert{It is clear from our derivations that the individual % \alert{It is clear from our derivations that the individual
%correlation energies should vary with both the density {\it %correlation energies should vary with both the density {\it