**Next message:**TheDude: "Derivatives in Feyncalc"**Previous message:**V. Shtabovenko: "Re: question on SUNF function"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]**Mail actions:**[ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

eh, what you mean is that i should replace it by myself for SU(2), just as

In[3]:= SUNF[a, b, c] SUNF[a, d, e] /.

SUNF[a_, b_, c_] SUNF[a_, d_, e_] -> (SD[b, d] SD[c, e] -

SD[b, e] SD[c, d])

Out[3]= \[Delta]^(bd) \[Delta]^(ce)-\[Delta]^(be) \[Delta]^(cd)

right?

and i want to ask another question,

In[16]:= SD[a, b] SUNTF[{m}, a, c] // SUNSimplify

SDF[a, b] SUNTF[{m}, a, c] // SUNSimplify

Out[16]= \[Delta]^(ab) Subsuperscript[T, ac, m]

Out[17]= Subsuperscript[T, bc, m]

\delta^ab(SD[a,b]) couldn't combine with SUNTF, and \delta_ab(SDF[a,b]) could do it. but the indices of \delta came from \epsilon is over up, and if i want to combine the two(namely,\epsilon and T^m_ab), should i replace the head of SD to SDF in the intermediate process?

Thanks a ton

**Next message:**TheDude: "Derivatives in Feyncalc"**Previous message:**V. Shtabovenko: "Re: question on SUNF function"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]**Mail actions:**[ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29
: 02/16/19-06:40:01 PM Z CET
*