ITensor / ITensor/ITensorNetworks.jl
Only one `TreeTensorNetwork`/`TTN` instead of seperate `TTNS`/`TTNO` types
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Julia
- Stars
- 128
- Forks
- 23
- Avg merge
- 4d 7h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 7
Description
It would be interesting to see if we can get away with just having a TreeTensorNetwork/TTN type that is treated as an operator or a state depending on the context.
In many ways the MPO/MPS types in ITensors.jl are nearly the same, and it can be awkward having both around.
If we really need to distinguish them for the sake of dispatch, we could have a wrapper type like Map(ttn) or Operator(ttn), which could be like an ITensorNetworkMap: https://github.com/ITensor/ITensors.jl/blob/v0.3.20/src/ITensorNetworkMaps/ITensorNetworkMaps.jl
Originally posted by @mtfishman in https://github.com/mtfishman/ITensorNetworks.jl/pull/18#discussion_r1037688998
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start with the existing TTNS/TTNO proposal and compare it with the MPO/MPS distinction described in the issue. Read the linked ITensorNetworkMaps.jl implementation and the referenced pull-request discussion; the work is done when the type and dispatch design is concretely agreed.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- julia
- Domain
- backend
- Issue type
- Refactor
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 20/100