Merged
Conversation
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
Jutho
reviewed
Mar 30, 2026
Jutho
previously approved these changes
Mar 30, 2026
Member
Jutho
left a comment
Jutho
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good to me (one suggestion), but I am no expert on this.
Co-authored-by: Jutho <Jutho@users.noreply.github.com>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR adds computation of the different Casimir values.
As this often shows up in various applications I think this is a good place to add that.
I've added tests for the SU(2) and SU(3) values, the formula should be valid for all values of
Nandk, and comes from:Unfortunately, this is closed access and I don't actually know how correct this formula is.
I spent too much time on finding this already, so I would be happy to just leave this in for now and assume that it is correct, since I did check it for the cases that are used most often.
If we are uncomfortable with this, I'd be OK with just restricting to N < 3 here, even though the formula's do seem to be correct.