Natural generalization of the ground-state Slater determinant to more than one dimension
D. K. Sunko∗ Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, University of Zagreb, Bijeniˇckacesta 32, HR-10000 Zagreb, Croatia.
The basic question is addressed, how the space dimension d is encoded in the Hilbert space of N identical fermions. There appears a finite number N!d−1 of many-body wave functions, called shapes, which cannot be generated by trivial combinatorial extension of the one-dimensional ones. A general algorithm is given to list them all in terms of standard Slater determinants. Conversely, excitations which can be induced from the one-dimensional case are bosonised into a system of distinguishable bosons, called Euler bosons, much like the electromagnetic field is quantized in terms of photons distinguishable by their wave numbers. Their wave functions are given explicitly in terms of elementary symmetric functions, reflecting the fact that the fermion sign problem is trivial in one dimension. The shapes act as vacua for the Euler bosons. They are the natural generalization of the single-Slater-determinant form for the ground state to more than one dimension. In terms of algebraic invariant theory, the shapes are antisymmetric invariants which finitely generate the N-fermion Hilbert space as a graded algebra over the ring of symmetric polynomials. Analogous results hold for identical bosons.
PACS numbers: 03.65.Ta, 03.65.Fd, 31.15.-p
I. INTRODUCTION state is just one particular linear combination of Slater determinants among many. Quantum effects are sometimes counter-intuitive be- In particular, the Kohn-Sham method [1] is a special cause physics happens in the space of wave functions, search in coefficient space, constrained by the require- not in the geometrical “laboratory” space of Newtonian ment that the final linear combination can be written as mechanics. Conversely, molecular isomerism, the phe- a single Slater determinant in some new single-particle nomenon that a given set of identical atoms can arrange wave functions. However, the restriction to a Slater- itself in molecules of different shapes, is quite intuitive ge- determinant form is arbitrary, basically due to a lack of ometrically. The question arises, how is it manifested in a priori alternatives. The price paid for it is that the wave-function space. The discreteness of wave functions new single-particle wave functions are artificial, even if must somehow limit the relative positions in laboratory the ground-state energy is correct. If the restriction is space. In particular, one would like to have a qualita- relaxed, the lack of structure in the functional-analytic tive argument, which shapes are possible solutions of the approach (one set of c-numbers is in principle as good as many-body Schr¨odingerequation, without a full calcula- another) leads to the impression that there is an infinity tion. of possibilities to choose from. The choice of ground-state wave function — i.e. par- ticular shape among possible isomers — is evidently re- Motivated by the above considerations, the present lated to the choice of a wave function with pronounced work explores a related but more qualitative idea of col- correlations, or collectivity. The notion of collectivity lectivity, based on wave-function properties rather than is usually taken to mean that the energy cannot be ex- energies. If the single-particle wave functions are sepa- pressed as the sum of energies of single-particle wave rable in the Cartesian coordinates of laboratory space, functions. That intuition cannot be literally true, be- good candidates for many-body collective states should cause the Kohn-Sham theorem [1] shows that it is possi- not inherit this separability. Such states are multidimen- ble to construct artificial single-particle states precisely sional in some non-trivial way, which is given a rigorous by the requirement that the exact ground state energy meaning here. can be expressed in this way. The main result is that there exist precisely N!d−1 anti- Since Dirac introduced them [2], Slater determi- symmetric forms, called shapes, which are the basic build- arXiv:1605.06002v1 [quant-ph] 17 May 2016 nants [3] have been the only fundamental antisymmetric ing blocks of any antisymmetric N-body wave function forms available to construct optimized wave functions. in d dimensions. This result is rooted in the algebraic Being a complete basis for the N-body Hilbert space, they theory of invariants [4], indeed it is expected in that con- encourage a functional-analytic, essentially structureless, text (known as “Hilbert’s 14th problem”). However, it is view of that space, as a vector space in which the ground unexpected to physicists and chemists, who are trained in the functional-analytic rather than algebraic approach to Hilbert spaces. In the former case, Hilbert space is viewed as a vector space spanned by an infinity of Slater ∗ [email protected] determinants Ψi, in which any wave function may be 2 written as dot [7, 8], or in the vacancy of an electride [9], but an X important aspect of the results is their abstraction and Ψ = ciΨi, (1) generality, based on a topological (node-counting) classi- i fication of wave functions, which is universal. In fact the basic algorithm operates at the level where single-particle where the c are c-numbers. When a vector space is i wave functions are represented by formal powers, so that endowed with an additional vector multiplication oper- a term like tk refers to Hermite polynomials H (x) in one ation, it becomes an algebra. When the vectors are k realization and to standing waves sin(k + 1)x in another. complex functions, the natural vector multiplication is No result depends on the particular realization. just ordinary multiplication of functions. The switch The article consists of two parts. The first is a self- to the algebraic approach is thus technically manifested contained derivation of all the results in an abstract set- as a generalization of the c to symmetric functions of i ting. The basic counting result is established, with a re- the space coordinates. Then it turns out that the sum cursion for the shape polynomial. The one-dimensional becomes finite: many-body Hilbert space is a finite- case is solved in terms of the Euler bosons. A polynomial dimensional algebra. Only a finite number of antisym- deflation algorithm is introduced to express the Euler- metric forms Ψ is needed to generate the whole Hilbert i boson wave functions in terms of standard Slater deter- space, now viewed as a graded algebra over the ring of minants. This algorithm is used in d > 1 to represent all symmetric polynomials (for N finite). These forms Ψ are i trivial (separable) states in an ordered succession of sub- just the generators of the Hilbert-space algebra, called spaces, finding the shapes as the remainder (orthogonal shapes here. In one dimension, there is only one shape, complement) at each level. The second part consists of which is the ground-state Slater determinant. Thus examples and illustrations. For N = 3 particles in d = 2 shapes are generalizations of this particular Slater de- dimensions, all the six shapes are constructed step by terminant to more than one dimension. They can always step. Some numerical experiments are performed with be expressed as superpositions of Slater determinants, the Coulomb interaction, to check that the scheme is not because the latter are a complete basis. The connections unstable with respect to it. Variational functions and between the algebraic and functional-analytic points of simulations are discussed, with a minimal example. view for the physical N-body problem have only begun While all the main formulas refer to fermions, in gen- to be explored in the present work. eral the results for identical bosons are very similar. This The shapes extend the notion of a vacuum state in an may have direct repercussions for systems of entangled explicit and formally rigorous sense: the usual ground- atoms. The bosonic case is compared to the fermionic state energy shift exp (−βE ) ≡ qEgs in the partition gs one at the end, before the discussion and conclusions. function is replaced by a shape polynomial P (q), which Some textbook mathematics is collected in the appen- counts all possible antisymmetric forms which can play dices to make the article better self-contained. the role of a vacuum. It is the generating function of the shapes. An algorithm is provided which generates the Hilbert-space span of all shapes in terms of Slater deter- II. THE BASIC COUNTING RESULT minants. It may be interpreted as a machine-assisted way to generate ans¨atze for correlated ground states when d > 1. A. Partition function Excitations of any one of these vacuum states are de- scribed by the symmetric-function coefficients, in other In physics, the partition function, or sum over states, is words they are bosonic. In contrast to the shapes, they typically used in the context of thermodynamics, with the can be extended from d = 1 as if the space directions idea that each “state” being counted is thermodynami- were color labels, combined in all possible ways. These cally possible, in the sense that it is an energy level of the symmetric states are called Euler bosons, because their actual system under consideration. In the present work, a partition function was first obtained by Euler [5]. Euler more general approach is taken, where a “state” is simply bosons cannot exist by themselves. Each wave function in any wave function, irrespective of whether there exists a the scheme is based on some single shape, with or with- Hamiltonian of which it is an eigenfunction. The only out an arbitrary number of excitations (Euler bosons) requirement on the partition function is that it count the on top of it. In brief, the shapes represent all possible states faithfully, i.e. each distinct wave function should many-body vacua for the Euler bosons. appear exactly once. The classification in the present form does not include If the single-particle wave functions are separable in spin, and refers to only one kind of particle. Neither is an Cartesian coordinates, there is a natural organizing prin- essential limitation. Including spin and different kinds of ciple for counting all states. Each many-body Slater de- particles amounts to combining several generating algo- terminant built out of such single-particle wave functions rithms of the type introduced here multiplicatively, which has some number of single-particle nodes in each direc- is unnecessary for an initial description. It is possible to tion in space, say nx, ny, nz, for d = 3. The list of all think of the states here as referring to a concrete system, Slater determinants with a given total number of nodes such as entangled atoms [6], or electrons in a quantum E ≡ nx + ny + nz is evidently finite. Increasing the total 3 number of nodes one by one, all possible wave functions bosons and fermions, only Egs is different [5, 10].) It will appear exactly once, so they can be counted faithfully. be shown now that the total number of shapes is finite, d−1 The above scheme introduces the important notion of Pd(N, q = 1) = N! , independently of any particular grading, which is just counting the total number of nodes counting scheme, which proves that Pd as defined above E. All N-body wave functions spanned by Slater deter- is always a polynomial. minants of the same grade E form a closed subspace of the Hilbert space, because a linear combination of such functions is itself a wave function of the same grade. B. High-temperature limit Clearly, one realization of this scheme is the familiar harmonic-oscillator well, for which the grade E is also The non-interacting partition function for N fermions the energy, so that the graded states are simultaneously in d dimensions obeys the well-known recursion rela- energy eigenstates, and the sum over states, organized tion [11, 12] by grade, also has the usual thermodynamic meaning. N Although the harmonic-oscillator picture is very useful 1 X Z (N, β) = (−1)m+1z (mβ)Z (N − m, β). (4) for the visualization of various results, it should not be d N d d construed that they are valid only for the oscillator. Even m=1 the limitation to separable single-particle wave functions Here z (β) ≡ Z (1, β) is the one-particle partition func- is not strictly necessary. It is retained throughout this d d tion, while Z (0, β) ≡ 1. In the infinite-temperature limit article to fix ideas, because it easily produces explicit d β → 0, or q → 1, the term m = 1 dominates the sum on formulas. The main result is an intrinsic property of N- the right, because the factor z (mβ) is then the same for body Hilbert space, because the dimension of an algebra d all values of m, while the factor Z (N − m, β) for m = 1 (the number of its generators) does not depend on any d strongly dominates those with N − 2 and less particles, particular realization. when the temperature is high. Inserting the ansatz (2), In order to implement the main idea from the Introduc- one gets (Z = Z at q = 1) tion, one should see how many N-body wave functions in E 1 d dimensions one can obtain which are separable across NZ (N, 0)dP (N, 1) the space dimensions. If the N-body functions in one 1 d d dimension are counted by some partition function, call = zd(0)Z1(N − 1, 0) Pd(N − 1, 1). (5) d it ZE, then all separable states are counted by (ZE) . N These are explicitly constructed by labeling the space At β = 0, Z1(N, 0) = z1(0) /N! (classical limit with directions with different colors, and combining the cor- Boltzmann counting), so that responding 1D wave functions in all possible ways. It Nd d follows from this interpretation that these states are not Nz1(0) Pd(N, 1)/N! all that can be found when d > 1. The reason is that d(N−1) d = zd(0)z1(0) Pd(N − 1, 1)/(N − 1)! . (6) the Pauli principle operates only upon the exchange of the full (vector) coordinates of a pair of particles, while Because the kinetic energy is additive in the space di- d the iterated d = 1 states impose the antisymmetrization mensions, we have zd(0) = z1(0) , so that finally for each axis (coordinate projection) individually, so that d−1 they are too restrictive when d > 1. Pd(N, 1) = Pd(N − 1, 1)N , (7) Therefore the essential idea of the present classification is to write the partition function of the d-dimensional which gives system of N identical fermions as d−1 Pd(N, 1) = N! , (8) d Zd = (ZE) Pd(N, q). (2) as advertised in the Introduction. This result is general and exact, because any system is a gas at sufficiently For d = 1 the ansatz reduces to high temperature. Taking logarithms, it means that the Egs(N) −β non-trivial states (shapes) have an extensive but finite Z1 = ZEP1(N, q) ≡ ZEq , q = e , (3) contribution to the free energy, which saturates at suffi- where Egs(N) is the ground-state energy in units of . ciently high temperature. Because the number of shapes The “extra” states allowed by the Pauli principle for is finite, Pd is a polynomial. d > 1 are counted by the factor Pd, which reduces in one dimension to a single monomial, the “energy shift” which counts the nodes of the ground state wave func- C. The shape polynomial tion. These “extra” states are called shapes, and the term Pd which counts them turns out to be a polyno- The above asymptotic result has been obtained with- mial for d > 1, called the shape polynomial. For a graded out reference to any particular counting scheme, or even d−1 counting scheme (harmonic well), ZE was first obtained one-body separability: there are always N! many- by Euler [5], hence the index E.(ZE is the same for body wave functions which cannot be induced from 4 the one-dimensional ones. Among all general counting interpreted as the appearance of N harmonic oscillators, schemes, the grading scheme is distinguished by the par- mutually distinguishable, each having a different energy tition function being explicitly solvable. In one dimen- spacing, ~ωk = k~ω, k = 1,...,N, but without a zero- sion, the sum over fermion states as counted by nodes point energy of their own. The principal purpose of this is [10] section is to obtain the wave functions of these Euler bosons.
X n1+...+nN The factored form of Eq. (9) suggests that an arbitrary Z1 = q excited state consists of two independent parts, so that 0≤n <... This symbolic-power representation is the level of ab- been absorbed into E0, i.e. the left-hand side lacks the straction which we adopt now. One can always specialize usual 1/2. This equation is “first-quantized,” because to the single-particle wave functions for a particular prob- the requirement that Φ be symmetric in the ti must be lem by a reverse of the same mapping, the important added extraneously. To obtain a primitive realization point being that it preserves the grading. The scheme of the symmetry requirement (“second quantization”), works because it encodes the essential behavior of nodes invoke the change of variables under multiplication and addition of functions. If two X functions are multiplied, the number of nodes is added. e1 = t1 + ... + tN = ti, If the functions are added, the number of nodes stays i X the same as that of the function with the larger num- e2 = t1t2 + t1t3 + ... + tN−1tN = titj, (21) ber of nodes. Pure powers behave in exactly the same i Z 2 2 √ n k 1 − t +x +xt 2 t Because ek has the eigenvalue k, substituting ek = q in B[ψn](t) = e 2 ψn(x) = √ . (18) π1/4 n! the above expression will give the corresponding canon- R ical partition function, recovering Euler’s result. Obvi- The Bargmann-transformed oscillator Hamiltonian is n1 n2 nN ously, the monomial e1 e2 . . . eN is the wave function then of n1 Euler bosons of type 1, n2 of type 2, etc. This N identification is the main result of the present section. X It obviously carries over to the formal-power representa- H = (ti∂ti + 1/2)~ω. (19) i=1 tion, again because the energy in the oscillator case is the grading, or polynomial degree, in the general case. Inserting the decomposition (13) into the Schr¨odinger Two things have been accomplished by identifying the equation HΨ = EΨ, the equation for Φ becomes Euler bosons. The most important one is finding a gen- N erating function for their wave functions, Eq. (23), which X E − E0 corresponds precisely to the sum over states which counts (t ∂ )Φ = Φ, (20) i ti ω them, Eq. (9). This will enable “lifting” the present re- i=1 ~ sult to d dimensions by way of Eq. (10) and thus identify- which is clearly solved by any homogeneous polynomial ing the wave functions of the shapes, counted by Pd(N, q), in the ti. Notice how the zero-point term from ~ω/2 has which is the main purpose of the present article. 6 The other is a more qualitative development: Eu- Slater determinants in the fifth level can be similarly ex- ler boson excitations have direct physical connotations. pressed as polynomials in the same ti. Now it is simply a Namely, the transformation (21) is non-linear, progress- matter of ordering the polynomial terms in some definite ing from a pure sum to a pure product. In physics, (say lexicographic) order, to see which Slater determi- product wave functions correspond to (non-interacting) nant contains the leading order monomial of the given gases, while sum wave functions are typically used as polynomial wave function, and subtracting it with the trial wave functions for liquids. In other words, the appropriate coefficient. Then the leading power of the re- progression from e1 to eN is physically in terms of de- mainder is determined, and subtracted in the same way. creasing collectivity: the lowest-grade Euler boson e1 is Because the Slater determinants are a complete orthog- the most collective (liquid-like), while the highest-grade onal basis for each level, this procedure is guaranteed to eN is least collective (most gas-like). This simplicity of terminate. physical interpretation pleasantly reflects their mathe- In fact the procedure is redundant. The Slater deter- matical simplicity, because of which they may be read- minants can themselves be factored as in Eq. (13), so ily calculated by Vi`ete’sinterpretation above, deserving there is no need to multiply out the term Ψ0. The prob- the name elementary symmetric functions. By contrast, lem boils down to expressing a given product of sums Schur functions are sophisticated combinatorial objects. like (24) in Schur functions, which is just a basis trans- The most efficient prescription for their calculation is to formation among symmetric functions. The reason for interpret them as generating functions of semi-standard stating the algorithm in the less efficient formulation is Young tableaux, which is quite a surprising insight [14] that it then generalizes directly to several dimensions, (see the Appendix). There is no simple physical interpre- where the analogous generalization of Schur functions is tation of this property, accounting perhaps for the fact not available. that representations of collective states in terms of Slater It is essential for the deflation algorithm that one deal determinants are rarely physically transparent. with Slater determinants of unnormalized single-particle k states. In practice,√ this means using formal powers ti , k instead of ti / k! as in Bargmann space. All superpo- B. Deflation algorithm sitions of Slater determinants are obtained among such unnormalized determinants, and normalized as superpo- In the previous section, it was found that Euler sitions only after being mapped back to some concrete bosons are the natural basis of graded one-dimensional realization. This will become clear in the example in the N-fermion wave functions. Slater determinants are in second part of the paper. a sense redundant: only one Slater determinant, the The above technical considerations reflect a change of ground state, is sufficient to generate the whole Hilbert viewpoint. The deflation algorithm in the algebraic ap- space, with excitations described in terms of Euler proach corresponds to taking projections in the standard bosons. In order to generalize this result to more than functional-analytic approach. The algebraic approach, one dimension, it is necessary to obtain the Euler-boson chosen by the mapping (15), brings one to consider N- wave functions explicitly, in terms of standard Slater de- fermion Hilbert space as a space of antisymmetric poly- terminants. nomials, graded by their degree. In one dimension, this First one must deal with a slight complication. Com- space maps straightforwardly on the space of symmetric 2 pare the wave functions e2Ψ0 and e1Ψ0, say. Because polynomials, which is one way to understand why the 2 2 e1 = (t1 + t2 + ...) contains terms like t1t2, which also fermion sign problem [17] is trivial when d = 1. While appear in e2 = t1t2 + ..., the two wave functions will not this insight is undoubtedly interesting, the true advan- be orthogonal. It is much better to interpret the powers tage of the algebraic approach appears in more than k ei appearing in Eq. (23) by raising individual monomials one dimension. There it uncovers a fundamental struc- in them to the required power without cross terms, e.g. ture of many-body Hilbert space which is hidden in the 2 2 2 e1 → t1 + t2 + ..., or in general: functional-analytic approach, as will become apparent in Sect. IV B below. k X k em → (ti1 ··· tim ) , (24) 1≤i1<... t1 t2 t3 ial states” for short) at the first excited level, so if it g0 ≡ |(1, 0), (0, 1), (0, 0)| = |t1, u2, 1| = u1 u2 u3 . contains more than d states, the remainder (orthogonal 1 1 1 complement) are the shapes at first level. After apply- (26) ing the deflation algorithm to find the span of the trivial states in terms of Slater determinants, a standard alge- braic algorithm is invoked to find the orthogonal comple- B. General algorithm for shape wave functions ment of this vector space. The dimension of the comple- ment space is given by the corresponding coefficient in As noted before, the factorized form of the wave func- the shape polynomial Pd(N, q), which is a useful check tion (17) follows the factorization (9) of the sum over on the implementation. Now one iterates the procedure, states. Similarly the d-dimensional sum over states (10) multiplying the first-level shapes with the Euler bosons implies the general form [4] e1, and adding the ground states multiplied by all two- 2 quanta bosons, like e2 and e1, to obtain all the trivial Pd(N,q=1) states in the second level. The span of the so-generated X ΦiΨi (27) second-level trivial space is again found by the deflation i=1 algorithm. The second-level shapes are the orthogonal complement to that space, and so on until all shapes for wave functions, where the Φi are d-dimensional Eu- predicted by the shape polynomial are found. In this ler boson states, and the Ψi are all the Pd(N, q = 1) way, the algorithm finds the Hilbert space span of the states counted by the factor Pd(N, q) in the expression shapes explicitly, defining them rigorously up to basis (10). These states have been called shapes above. Clearly transformations in the orthogonal-complement space at they generalize the ground-state Slater determinant in each level. The constructive proof of Eq. (27) is thus Eq. (17) in such a way that an arbitrary wave func- complete. tion can be expressed in terms of shapes, which must be The algorithm is not efficient, because it finds all the antisymmetric wave functions, because the Φi are sym- states, while the number of trivial states rises quickly metric. In Sect. II B, it has been proven completely gen- even as the shapes die out. E.g. for N = 3 particles in d−1 erally that Pd(N, q = 1) = N! , therefore the whole d = 3 dimensions, the total number of shapes is 3!2 = 36. N-fermion Hilbert space can be finitely generated with The shape polynomial reads the shapes as basic antisymmetric building blocks. They 9 7 6 5 4 3 2 are generators of the finite-dimensional Hilbert-space al- P3(3, q) = q + 3q + 7q + 6q + 6q + 10q + 3q (29) gebra induced by wave-function multiplication. This is the main result of the present work, announced in the (note the triply degenerate ground state), so there is a Introduction. The purpose of this section is to generate single shape in the seventh excited level (coefficient of the shape basis explicitly, amounting to a constructive q9). But the degeneracy of the seventh level is 3838, so proof of the same result. the algorithm spends most of its time finding the span of One can combine the deflation algorithm with the d- the 3837 trivial states, in order to extract the last single dimensional extension of Eq. (23) to obtain all the shape. shapes. All possible Euler boson wave functions in d The d-th power appearing in the factorization (10), as dimensions are obtained simply by multiplying d copies reflected by Eq. (28) in the above construction, allows a of Eq. (23), one for each set of variables ti, ui,..., repre- refinement of the expression (27) in general. Namely, the senting the directions in space: terms Φi can always be written, e.g. in three dimensions, 1 1 1 1 X i x y z ··· ··· ··· , Φi = cjklΦijΦikΦil, (30) 1 − e1(t) 1 − eN (t) 1 − e1(u) 1 − eN (u) jkl (28) x,y,z where e.g. e1(u) = u1 + ... + uN , and so on. There is no where the Φ are Euler-boson monomials, each cor- similar closed generating formula for the wave functions responding to a particular direction in space (Cartesian 8 axis). In other words, the Φi are superpositions of terms where g0 is the ground state (26). The four states or- independently symmetric in the N variables (coordinate thogonal to them are the shapes predicted by the term 3 components) along each of the d directions in space. This 4q in P2(3, q): form is far from the most general one in all Nd coor- dinates, symmetric upon exchange of any two particle S11 = g11,S12 = g12 + g14, indices. [For example, terms like t1u2 + t2u1 cannot ap- S13 = g13 + g15,S14 = g16. (34) pear alone, but only embedded in factored expressions At the second level, spanned by 14 Slater determinants, like (t +t )(u +u ).] It is interesting that such a strong 1 2 1 2 the partition function breaks down the multiplicity as restriction on the coefficients Φ still generates the whole i 14 = 1 · 5 + 4 · 2 + 1, which amounts to: (a) the ground- N-fermion Hilbert space. Physically, it means that the state g multiplied by any of e (t)2, e (u)2, e (t)e (u), shapes are the only “genuinely” d-dimensional states; all 0 1 1 1 1 e (t), or e (u); (b) any of the four shapes (34) at first excitations of the shapes may be reached as if the direc- 2 2 level, multiplied by either e (t) or e (u); (c) finally the tions in space were different colors. 1 1 last shape, orthogonal to the 13 trivial states just listed. On a lesser note, the trivial states generated by the It is algorithm are not always orthogonal, because multipli- cation of various shapes with different Euler bosons can S = |t u2, t , 1| − |t2u , u , 1| generate the same monomials. Experience with standard 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 quantum chemical calculations [18] suggests that little + |t1, u2, 1| − |t1u1, t2, u3|. (35) would be gained by orthogonalizing these vectors explic- To visualize these states in real space, one must map itly, especially because the overlap matrices among the the abstract (node-counting) representation back to some trivial states are quite sparse. There is a physical in- concrete realization. A standard model for electrons in terpretation both of the overlaps, and of the sparseness. a quantum dot is to place them in a harmonic oscillator The overlap indicates the possibility that exciting some potential [7, 8]. For the oscillator potential, the required shape with an Euler boson, and then shedding a different inverse of the mapping (15) is Euler boson, will give another shape. Such reconfigura- tion by excitation is observed sometimes, but cannot be k −x2/2 t → φk(xi) = Hk(xi)e i , (36) too easy if the shapes are robust, hence the sparseness. i and similarly for the other directions, with Hk the Her- mite polynomial. This mapping operates uniquely only V. EXAMPLES on monomials like tkum, because tktm = tk+m does not imply φk(x)φm(x) = φk+m(x). Hence it should be ap- A. The case d = 2 and N = 3 plied to factored expressions like ΦΨ only after expanding them in the abstract representation first. The present example serves as an illustration of the The normalized single-particle densities corresponding algorithm, and of the inverse mapping which recovers a to S11, S12, and S2 are shown in Fig. 1. Note that S11 concrete realization of the shapes from the abstract repre- is just the ground state of the one-dimensional system, sentation. It is the simplest non-trivial multidimensional appearing as a first-excited state in two dimensions. S13 ◦ case. The partition function (10) is and S14 are rotated by 90 with respect to S11 and S12, so there are only four “essentially” different shapes, not six, 2 including the ground state. Obviously, this redundancy 1 1 1 (q2 + 4q3 + q4) is related to the invariance under relabeling of the axes. 1 − q 1 − q2 1 − q3 Notably, the shape S12 = g12 +g14 and the trivial state 2 3 4 = q + (1 · 2 + 4)q + (1 · 5 + 4 · 2 + 1)q + ..., (31) e1(t)g0 = −g12 +g14 have the same single-particle density matrix, because the Slater determinants g12 and g14 differ 2 3 4 where q + 4q + q = P2(3, q) is the shape polynomial, in two orbitals, so the cross-terms g12 · g14 vanish when predicting six shapes, one of which is the ground state, integrated in all but one variable. This means they are Eq. (26). The first-excited manifold is spanned by six part of the same manifold of wave functions over which Slater determinants: the density functional is determined by minimization in 2 the Hohenberg-Kohn [19] approach, for a given density t1, t2, 1 ≡ g11, |t1u1, t2, 1| ≡ g12, n: 2 2 u1, t2, 1 ≡ g13, t1, u2, 1 ≡ g14, (32) D E F [n] = min Ψ Hˆ0 + Vˆee Ψ . (37) 2 {Ψ:ρ[Ψ]=n} |t1u1, u2, 1| ≡ g15, u1, u2, 1 ≡ g16. The deflation algorithm gives the Euler-boson states at They differ in the correlation (two-particle) density ma- first level: trix, as shown in Fig. 2. The whole discussion above could have been carried e1(t)g0 = (t1 + t2 + t3)g0 = −g12 + g14, out equally well for electrons in a box, with the mapping e1(u)g0 = (u1 + u2 + u3)g0 = −g13 + g15, (33) k k ti → cos kxi, ui → cos kyi (38) 9 final value of the integral, so that Φ = 1 gives a smaller integral overall, which is preferable when the force is re- pulsive. Typically, one observes in the numerical experiments that the diagonal Coulomb matrix elements separate a shape clearly from the multiplet of trivial states, spanned by the same Slater determinants. E.g., the state (35), spanned by four vectors, is separated from the remaining triplet. The off-diagonal elements also show the expected pattern, in that they are much smaller among different shapes, than within such multiplets. In other words, it is much more difficult for the Coulomb force to change a shape, than to relax a shape over its related multiplet of trivial states. The observed effects of the Coulomb force conform to the idea that excited states are organized into bands, such that the lowest state in each band is dominated by a single shape. Such excitation patterns are ubiquitous in finite systems, including nuclei, molecules, and quantum dots, where the lowest state in each band is sometimes FIG. 1. Single-particle densities for S11, S12, and S2 in the os- called the band-head. Shapes are natural candidates for cillator potential. The coordinate scale is the oscillator length p the band-head states, because, as noted already, they are a = ~/mω. the only genuinely d-dimensional states. . C. Trial wave functions Truncations of the method which builds the whole Hilbert space give rise to specific families of trial wave functions. For example, take two particles in three di- mensions. The shape polynomial is 3q + q3, and the four shapes are Ψ1 = t1 − t2, Ψ2 = u1 − u2, Ψ3 = v1 − v2, Ψ4 = Ψ1Ψ2Ψ3. (39) FIG. 2. Two-particle densities for e1(t)g0 and S12 in the os- Contrary to the intuitive idea of shapes in the Introduc- cillator potential, along the cut ~x1 = (x, x) and ~x2 = (y, y). tion, Ψ4 does factor over the space dimensions. Such an The scale is the same as in Fig. 1. “accidentally” factored term must appear whenever it, too, gives a possible way to write an antisymmetric func- tion. Here it is the only higher shape, showing that the for open boundary conditions, replacing cos kx, y with number of ways an antisymmetric wave function can be sin(k + 1)x, y for closed boundary conditions. In any constructed is quite restricted for two particles. realization, the six shapes span the whole space of an- A general two-body wave function can be written tisymmetric three-body states in two dimensions, using by combining the Ψi with symmetric-polynomial coef- only symmetric-function coefficients. ficients: 4 X B. Coulomb interaction Φi(t, u, v)Ψi. (40) i=1 For the repulsive Coulomb interaction between Trial wave functions are obtained by restricting the poly- fermions in a harmonic well, small numerical experiments nomials in various ways. For example, Φi(t, u, v) = in d = 2 and d = 3 invariably favor the shapes as giving a ci0 + ci1e1(t) + ci2e1(u) + ci3e1(v). The approach pro- smaller value of the Coulomb repulsion hΨ| Vˆee |Ψi, over vides a qualitative language to describe the trial func- 2 the trivial basis states of the form ΨT = ΦΨ1, where Ψ1 tions. Thus, whether e2 or e1 is more important in sec- is some shape, excited by a symmetric term Φ 6= 1, taken ond order is a question with physical meaning, because, 2 nodeless (otherwise anything can be construed). Plausi- as noted before, e2 is a gas-like excitation, while e1 is bly, Φ seems to act as a coherent amplification for the liquid-like. 10 ~ The trial wave functions use a relatively small number where Φ~n(R) contains Hermite functions. The node of Slater determinants, because the shapes themselves v1 = v2 which was explicitly controlled in the Bargmann are quite sparing in this sense. E.g. S2 in Eq. (35) uses representation is now hidden under cancellations of oscil- only four vectors of the available fourteen. Similarly, the lating functions. Real-space representations generically highest shape for N = 3 in d = 3 is spanned by 36 have the problem that nodes of the constituent one-body Slater determinants out of possible 3838. Finding that wave functions, required by orthogonality, interfere with particular combination is quite beyond trial and error. the analysis of nodes of the N-body function, which are completely different objects [20]. Similar issues arise for standing waves cos kx, which D. Simulations may be avoided by the travelling-wave complexification eikx. As of this writing, it seems that the advantages of The critical issue is to locate the nodes of many-body having φkφm = φk+m outweigh any disadvantage of com- functions in the Nd-dimensional configuration space [20], plexification. Further considerations along these lines are otherwise the well-known fermion sign problem ap- beyond the scope of this article. pears [17]. These nodes are unknown, so that simula- tions use a guiding function whose nodes are supposed to be near those of the exact solution. The shapes pro- VI. SPACE DIMENSION AND vide a finite and complete antisymmetric-function basis BOSON-FERMION CORRESPONDENCE for guiding functions in simulations. The model of spin-polarized electrons confined to a The factorization (2) is the same for identical bosons. sphere in d = 3 is of contemporary interest as a test-bed The only difference in the recursion for the shape poly- for theory and simulations [21]. Here it means mapping nomial (11) is that the alternating sign (−1)k+1 does not t, u, v to x, y, z and interpreting the latter (Cartesian) appear, and Slater determinants have to be replaced by coordinates in terms of polar and azimuthal angles on permanents (i.e. lose the alternating sign) in the gen- the unit sphere. For two particles, the shapes (39) define eral algorithm. The Euler bosons remain formally the the nodal surfaces same elementary symmetric function monomials. In- distinguishable (original) bosons are replaced by distin- x1 = x2, y1 = y2, z1 = z2. (41) guishable Euler bosons and shapes, in close parallel to In the space of particle 1, these are three circles which the fermion case. This correspondence explains where cut off a cap of the sphere at the coordinates x2, y2, z2, have “gone” all the most general symmetric functions, respectively, of particle 2. If the Hamiltonian is invariant alluded to in Sect. IV B above. They span the space of under coordinate permutations, then hΨi| H |Ψji = 0 for identical bosons, which is however also finitely generated, i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, 3, so one can choose any one of them with coefficients (Euler bosons) as restricted as the ones for the guiding function without loss of generality, say for fermions. In other words, just as a finite number of Ψ3 = z1 − z2. Then the most general ground-state wave antisymmetric N-body functions is sufficient to generate function (40) up to relabeling the axes is them all, so can all symmetric functions be generated from a finite number of genuinely d-dimensional bosonic [Φ1 + (x1 − x2)(y1 − y2)Φ2](z1 −z2) ≡ (z1 −z2)Φe, (42) shapes. These symmetric shapes are the only “real” dif- ference between bosons and fermions. including Ψ4. It follows that the interacting ground state has the same nodes z1 = z2 as the non-interacting ground An interesting distinction appears between spaces of odd and even dimension. In even dimensions, shape poly- state Φe = const., assuming [20–22] that Φe 6= const. does not introduce new nodes. This result was recently de- nomials are always symmetric. This can be understood rived as a theorem for this particular model [21], while by replacing q → 1/q in the recursion (11), which re- the above reasoning is model-independent, based on the verses the polynomial. Clearly the net effect on the re- N limited number of possible shapes, as listed in Eq. (39). cursion is that the coefficient Ck (q) gains an extra sign k+1 By the same reasoning, a similar result as (42) can of (−1) . Because it is raised to the d-th power, this be obtained for the oscillator potential, with the map- extra sign vanishes in even dimensions, so the recursion ping (36). Then the interesting question arises, whether for the polynomial and for the reversed polynomial is the simulating the oscillator in real or complex (Bargmann) same. Therefore the polynomial must be symmetric, in 2 3 4 space is more convenient, given that complexification both bosonic and fermionic cases. Such is q + 4q + q doubles the number of real variables. A simulation keep- in Eq. (31). The odd-dimensional case is more interesting. Now the ing z1 < z2 should converge to a form like (42) for a node- sign change (−1)k+1 cancels the (−1)k+1 in the recursion less Φ,e however the natural eigenfunctions of the problem are still the Hermite functions, which can be recovered for the fermionic case, and introduces it in the bosonic only by multiplying out the original abstract expression: case: polynomial reversal changes the bosonic recursion into the fermionic one, and vice versa. This means that X ~ the coefficient lists in the shape polynomials for bosons (v1 − v2)Φe → c~nΦ~n(R), (43) ~n and for fermions are “mirror images” of each other. For 11 example, the shape polynomial for N = 3 bosons in d = 3 of N variables. The grading is by degree of the poly- dimensions is nomials, which is just the energy in the oscillator case. 2 3 4 5 6 7 Remarkably, but not unexpectedly, the main result (45) B3(3, q) = 1 + 3q + 7q + 6q + 6q + 10q + 3q , (44) is equally valid for bosons and for fermions, with symme- try in place of antisymmetry, and permanents replacing to be compared with P3(3, q) in Eq. (29). In odd dimensions, physical inferences can be made determinants in the constitutive expressions. between the bosonic case and the fermionic one. For ex- Antisymmetric polynomials in one dimension can al- ways be studied by proxy symmetric polynomials: Slater ample, every bosonic polynomial Bd(N, q) begins with a coefficient of unity, because the bosonic ground state determinants in formal powers and Schur functions dif- cannot be degenerate — but this statement means that fer by a fixed factor, the Vandermonde determinant [14]. the highest shape in the fermionic polynomial is always The present work shows that when d > 1 antisymme- non-degenerate. Furthermore, the first excited state for try gives rise to qualitatively new polynomial invariants, bosons contains no shapes, because its degeneracy is al- the shapes. They are a different generalization of the Vandermonde determinant than the obvious one, which ways d, and there are also d Euler bosons e1, as men- tioned before. Therefore, there will be no shapes at the is just an excited one-dimensional state. This mathe- second-highest level for fermions — the absence of the matical generalization has a direct physical meaning as term q8 in Eq. (29) mirrors the absence of q1 in Eq. the generalization of the Slater-determinant form for the ground state to more than one dimension. The appear- (44). For a simple example, Ψ4 in Eq. (39) is a second- excited state, while all nine first-excited states are of the ance of additional antisymmetric invariants — the shapes — is a consequence of the weakening of the Pauli prin- form (a1 + a2)(b1 − b2) with a, b = t, u, v. ciple when d > 1, because it requires antisymmetry only with respect to interchange of vector coordinates, i.e. si- VII. DISCUSSION multaneous interchange of d-plets of variables refering to different particles, as opposed to the interchange of any The main result of this work is a fundamental insight two variables, which is the case in one dimension. into the structure of N-fermion Hilbert space: a finite Particles with different spin projections are distin- number of antisymmetric functions generate all antisym- guishable, so their wave functions can be obtained by metric functions, with symmetric-function coefficients. a simple direct product of the spaces discussed here. No- tably, the shape space is not closed with respect to spin. This property of being finitely generated does not depend d−1 on any particular realization of the Hilbert space [4]. It For 2N spin-up fermions, there are (2N)! shapes, while for N fermions of spin up and N of spin down, has been made explicit here with the convenient choice 2(d−1) of one-body functions separable in Cartesian coordinates. there are only N! shapes, a much smaller number The independence of the main result on such technicali- in general. Raising the total spin projection, which makes ties was demonstrated in the formula (8), which needed more particles indistinguishable, increases the choice of only the structural formula (4) to count the shapes di- shapes, i.e. orbital states with enhanced collectivity. This rectly from the ansatz (2). observation fits well with Hund’s rule [24]: spin-polarized Mathematically, Eq. (10) is a Poincar´e(a.k.a. Hilbert) states are preferred when Coulomb effects are important. series [23], which counts the dimensions of the vector The direct product of up- and down-spin spaces does (Hilbert) spaces of a given grade, which may be visu- not imply that the wave functions have to be in pure alized as the degeneracy of the corresponding oscillator product form, which is known to constrain them unphys- level. The particular form of the series indicates how ically [25]. One can assume a configuration-interaction these spaces may be generated algebraically by combin- (CI) form, which is the superposition ing certain invariant polynomials, called Euler bosons X and shapes here. In the standard language of invariant ciΨ↑iΨ↓i, (46) theory [4], the Euler bosons are primary, and the shapes i secondary invariants. This identification follows [4] from where the Ψσi are particular cases of (45). A CI form the most general form of the wave function, e.g. for d = 3: can describe the topology of the exact nodal surface [25]. N!2 By mapping all wave functions onto symbolic polynomi- X X Φ Ψ , Φ = ci Φx Φy Φz , (45) als, the algebraic approach puts the discussion of nodal- i i i jkl ij ik il surface topologies directly into the purview of algebraic i=1 jkl geometry, one of whose traditional concerns are the ze- where the Φx,y,z are monomials of Euler bosons in the ros of multivariate polynomials [26, 27]. On the other 2 three directions, while the Ψi are all the N! shapes of hand, there is always an underlying differentiable mani- N particles in three dimensions. The invariants Ψi are fold, spanned by the original one-body wave functions. antisymmetric polynomials over Z which finitely gener- For the harmonic oscillator, the Bargmann transform ate the Hilbert space of N identical fermions as a graded even allows a direct reinterpretation of the same poly- algebra, with coefficients Φi from the ring of polynomi- nomials as analytic functions in complex (Bargmann) als over C, independently symmetric in each of d sets space. Physical intuition suggests that possible nodal- 12 surface topologies should not depend qualitatively on the From a practical point of view, the factorial rise in the confining potential, as long as one can be adiabatically number of shapes is somewhat unfortunate. However, transformed into another. Hence the harmonic-oscillator problems involving strong correlations are usually local setting is already quite general, as far as the topology of in nature, i.e. involve only a small number of electrons. nodal surfaces is concerned. Even in solid-state physics, this case is common, as at- Restoration of rotational invariance similarly proceeds tested by the remarkable popularity of locally based ap- by superposition. As already noted, such basis issues can- proaches, from finite-system studies to dynamical mean- not impinge on the underlying property of Hilbert space, field theory [29]. Taking N↑ = N↓ = 4 as a modestly am- that it is finitely generated. However, a large part of bitious limit of practicality for d = 3 — meaning that 255 practical invariant theory [4] is to find optimal sets of gen- of the 576 shapes for this case have been generated on the erators for particular applications, and the flexibility of author’s laptop, while the rest would require additional the algebraic structure in the choice of generators bodes optimization and/or a bigger computer — problems with well for future physics applications. In the present work, up to eight unpolarized electrons are within reach, which an explicit realization of generators organized by grade is competitive as of this writing. In two dimensions, the has been given. They can either be “post-processed” into situation is naturally better. rotationally invariant states, or perhaps a completely dif- The expression (45) collects the two main results of ferent algorithm may be found which produces rotation- this work. First, there is a finite number of shapes in ally invariant shapes natively. Generally, restoration of which any wave function can be expanded. In physical symmetries broken by the shape-generating algorithm is terms, there is a finite number of possible N-body vacua. needed whenever they are not broken by the physical Second, the polynomial coefficients in this expansion, or ground state. excitations of the vacua, are 1D-bosonic, i.e. symmetric in The existence of shapes provides an unexpected per- the N space coordinates on each of the d axes separately. spective on the fermion sign problem [17]. Given that the To conclude, the notion of the N-body vacuum in d Euler-boson wave functions are symmetric, the fermion space dimensions has been given a precise and general sign problem appears only because there exists more than algebraic meaning for fixed N and d. An algorithm to one shape. Conversely, if a problem could be described construct all possible vacua was presented, and it was by the excitations of a single shape, the whole physical shown that they finitely generate the full Hilbert space space of the system could be described in the Euler boson of N identical particles. It is hoped that these insights language, avoiding the sign problem. One can envisage will lead to advances in practical calculation, at least for imposing such a scenario in a Kohn-Sham-like approach, values of N similar to those encountered in contemporary choosing a particular shape by qualitative argument, and work. making it give the correct binding energy with a self- consistently derived single-particle basis. Such a program is conceptually similar to a fixed-node approach [25, 28], except that some movement of the nodes is still allowed, ACKNOWLEDGMENTS due to optimization in the Euler-boson sector. The finite number of shapes brings variation and sim- ulation closer together than is usually understood. The I thank D. Svrtan for his help and interest in this fact that e−τH is a general projector on the exact ground work. Conversations with O. S. Bariˇsi´c, I. Batisti´c, state becomes relative when generality is a finite range and M. Primc are gratefully acknowledged. Thanks are of possibilities, listed in advance. It is then a matter of also due to J. Cioslowski, P.-F. Loos, J. Tahir-Kheli, expediency rather than principle to replace the universal H. Vanˇcikand J. Zaanen for reading and commenting projector e−τH with a specific projector in a given simu- upon the manuscript. This work was supported by the lation. An explicit choice of ground-state projector turns Croatian Ministry of Science grant 119-1191458-0512 and a simulation into variational optimization. by the University of Zagreb grant 202759. N(N+1)/2 [1] W. Kohn and L. J. Sham, Phys. Rev. 140, A1133 (1965). Euler gets q because he starts from 1 ≤ n1 in [2] P. A. M. Dirac, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Lon- Eq. (9). don A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences [6] R. C. King and T. A. Welsh, Journal of Physics: Confer- 112, 661 (1926). ence Series 30, 1 (2006). [3] J. C. Slater, Phys. Rev. 34, 1293 (1929). [7] R. J. Warburton, B. T. Miller, C. S. D¨urr,C. B¨odefeld, [4] H. Derksen and G. Kemper, Computational Invari- K. Karrai, J. P. Kotthaus, G. Medeiros-Ribeiro, P. M. ant Theory, Encyclopaedia of Mathematical Sciences Petroff, and S. Huant, Phys. Rev. B 58, 16221 (1998). (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2002). [8] S. Kalliakos, M. Rontani, V. Pellegrini, A. Pinczuk, [5] L. Euler, Comm. Acad. Petrop. 13, 64 (1741–43, 1751), A. Shinga, C. Garcia, G. Goldoni, E. Molinari, L. Pfeif- see p. 80, or arxiv:0711.3656 (transl. by J. Bell), p. 15. fer, and K. West, Solid State Communications 149, 1436 13 (2009). [19] P. Hohenberg and W. Kohn, Phys. Rev. 136, B864 [9] M.-S. Miao and R. Hoffmann, Accounts of Chemical Re- (1964). search 47, 1311 (2014). [20] D. Ceperley, Journal of Statistical Physics 63, 1237 [10] G. E. Andrews, The Theory of Partitions (Addison- (1991). Wesley, New York, 1976). [21] P.-F. Loos and D. Bressanini, The Journal of Chemical [11] F. Fa`adi Bruno, Einleitung in die Theorie der Bin¨aren Physics 142, 214112 (2015). Formen (B. G. Teubner, Leipzig, 1881). [22] M. Bajdich, L. Mitas, G. Drobn´y, and L. K. Wagner, [12] D. I. Ford, American Journal of Physics 39, 215 (1971). Phys. Rev. B 72, 075131 (2005). [13] A. C. Aitken, Determinants and Matrices (Oliver and [23] R. P. Stanley, Advances in Mathematics 28, 57 (1978). Boyd, Edinburgh and London, 1939). [24] S. Yamanaka, K. Koizumi, Y. Kitagawa, T. Kawakami, [14] R. P. Stanley, Enumerative Combinatorics, Vol. 2 (Cam- M. Okumura, and K. Yamaguchi, International Journal bridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999). of Quantum Chemistry 105, 687 (2005). [15] V. Bargmann, Communications on Pure and Applied [25] D. Bressanini, Phys. Rev. B 86, 115120 (2012). Mathematics 14, 187 (1961). [26] J. S. Milne, “Algebraic geometry (v6.01),” (2015), avail- [16] V. Bargmann, Communications on Pure and Applied able at www.jmilne.org/math/. Mathematics 20, 1 (1967). [27] J. Dieudonne, The American Mathematical Monthly 79, [17] E. Y. Loh, J. E. Gubernatis, R. T. Scalettar, S. R. White, 827 (1972). D. J. Scalapino, and R. L. Sugar, Phys. Rev. B 41, 9301 [28] V. Filinov, High Temperature 52, 615 (2014). (1990). [29] A. Georges, G. Kotliar, W. Krauth, and M. J. Rozen- [18] S. Reine, T. Helgaker, and R. Lindh, Wiley Interdis- berg, Rev. Mod. Phys. 68, 13 (1996). ciplinary Reviews: Computational Molecular Science 2, [30] T. Zivkovi´candˇ Z. B. Maksi´c, The Journal of Chemical 290 (2012). Physics 49, 3083 (1968). [31] L. E. McMurchie and E. R. Davidson, Journal of Com- putational Physics 26, 218 (1978). Appendix A: Notes on Schur functions [14] The classic definition of Schur functions is a ratio of two determinants. The denominator is the Vandermonde determinant in some indeterminates zi, N−1 N−1 N−1 z z ··· z 1 2 N zN−2 zN−2 ··· zN−2 1 2 N . . . Y ∆(z1, z2, . . . , zN ) ≡ . . . = (zi − zj), (A1) z z ··· z 1≤i N−1+λ1 N−1+λ1 N−1+λ1 z1 z2 ··· zN N−2+λ N−2+λ N−2+λ 1 z 2 z 2 ··· z 2 1 2 N sλ ≡ . . . . (A2) ∆(z1, z2, . . . , zN ) . . . λN λN λN z1 z2 ··· zN The divisibility of the numerator by the denominator may be inferred from the fact that both vanish when any two zi = zj. The result of the division is given by a combinatorial interpretation of sλ. Take a Young tableau of shape λ and fill it with natural numbers not greater than N, increasing along columns and nondecreasing along rows. Call nk ≥ 0 the number of times the number k appears in the tableau. A type T (λ) is just a particular filling so obtained, for a given shape λ; then X n1 n2 nN sλ = z1 z2 ··· zN , (A3) T (λ) where the sum is over all possible types. Thus coefficients in Schur functions must be natural (counting) numbers. Operationally, this formula is much simpler than the determinantal one. For example, s1 = z1 + z2 + ... + zN , (A4) 14 because a single box can be filled with the numbers 1, 2,...,N only one at a time. On the other hand, if all the λi = 1, this corresponds to a vertical strip of height N, which can be filled in only one way, s1N = z1z2 ··· zN . (A5) The elementary symmetric functions ek similarly correspond to vertical strips of height k: they are the Schur functions k of the partition λ = (1 ... 1)k times = 1 . E.g. for k = 2 in N = 3 variables, s11 = s12 = z1z2 + z1z3 + z2z3. Appendix B: Matrix element of the Coulomb force In quantum chemical calculations, one typically uses matrix elements between non-orthogonal Hermite Gaussian functions [30], which are best calculated recursively [31]. I was not able to locate the corresponding closed expression for orthogonal Hermite functions in the literature, so I give it here, without pretense to originality. Let Z 0 0 ~ ~ 0 ∗ ~ ∗ ~ 0 1 ~ ~ 0 [~n~n | VC |~m~m ] = dR dR Φ~n(R)Φ~n0 (R ) Φ ~m(R)Φ ~m0 (R ) (B1) |R~ − R~ 0| be the two-body matrix element between products of unnormalized Hermite functions, ~ −x2/2 Φ~n(R) ≡ φn1 (R1) ··· φnd (Rd), φn(x) = Hn(x)e , (B2) where Hn is the Hermite polynomial. Using the standard trick [18] +∞ 1 1 Z 2 2 = √ e−r w dw, (B3) |r| π −∞ one finds, for dimensions d > 1: 0 0 0 d ni+mi ni+mi ki+k r Z 1 0 0 i 0 0 d 2 2 (d−3)/2 Y X X nimi nimi k w i 0 [~n~n | VC |~m~m ] = π dw (1 − w ) a a 0 (−1) Hki+k (0) √ , (B4) ki ki i π 0 0 2 i=1 ki=0 ki=0 where (n+m−k)/2 nm 2 n!m! ak = m+n−k k+n−m k+m−n (B5) 2 ! 2 ! 2 ! for n+m+k even and non-negative factorials in the denominator, zero otherwise. The Hermite polynomials Hk+k0 (0), evaluated at zero, are zero for k + k0 odd, and 0 k (k−k0)/2 (k + k )! 0 (−1) Hk+k (0) = (−1) k+k0 (B6) 2 ! for k + k0 even. Finally, when the product in Eq. (B4) is expanded, the integrals over w give the beta function in place of Boys’ function [18]: Z 1 l + 1 d − 1 Γ l+1 Γ d−1 I (l) = (1 − w2)(d−3)/2wl dw = B , = 2 2 . (B7) d 2 2 l+d 0 2Γ 2 In particular, π l r π 1 I (l) = ≈ ,I (l) = , (B8) 2 2l+1 l/2 2l 3 l + 1 P 0 noting that l = i ki + ki is always even.