Applications of Computer Algebra pp 147-168 | Cite as

# A LISP System for Chemical Groups: Wigner — Eckart Coefficients for Arbitrary Permutation Groups

## Abstract

Computer applications of group theory have almost invariably used numerical representations of the fundamental quantities of the group. For example, the combination laws in the crystallographic groups have been described as matrix multiplications on tables of coordinates [1]. These decimal values are approximate specifications of in principle exactly equivalent points. The finite mathematics realized in computers does not permit the numerical operations to represent faithfully the group theoretic operations.

Symbolic manipulation systems make possible an exact representation of the combination laws of a group, and the exact calculation of the characters, irreducible representations, and coupling coefficients which symmetry-adapt primitive bases. We illustrate how the small MuMATH (Registered trade mark of the Soft Warehouse) system can generate properties of the permutation groups useful in the analysis of NMR spectra of flexible or rearranging systems. The work rests on the properties of semi-direct products, as described by Altmann [2].

## Keywords

Irreducible Representation Permutation Group Semidirect Product Double Coset Pair Exchange## Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

## References

- [1]C. Trindle, J. Comput. Chem. 5, 162 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [2]S. L. Altmann, Induced Representations in Crystals and Molecules, Academic Press (New York, 1977)Google Scholar
- [2]asee also S. L. Altmann, Rev. Mod. Phys. 35, 641 (1963)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [3]GPTHEORY:FORTRAN Computer Program for Determining Molecular Symmetry Properties, T. D. Bouman and G. L. Goodman, Argonne National Laboratory Tech. Rept. ANL-7803, 1971Google Scholar
- [3]aS. Flodmark and E. Blokker, Int. J. Quantum Chem. 1S, 703 (1967) are examples; a survey is given in [1].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [4]Augusta Ada, Lady King, later Countess of Lovelace, provided these remarks in a commentary on Babbage’s report; reproduced in V. Bowden’s Faster Than Thought; the occasion described in Charles Babbage: Pioneer of the Computer, A. Hyman, Princeton U. Press (Princeton, NJ, 1983)Google Scholar
- [5]A clear discussion of the Turing machine is given by A. Hodges, Alan Turing: The Enigma, Simon and Schuster (New York, 1983)MATHGoogle Scholar
- [6]P. McCorduck, Machines Who Think, Freeman (San Francisco, 1978), recounts the history of the AI movement.Google Scholar
- [7]A. Turing, “Computing Machinery and Intelligence,” reprinted in Minds and Machines, A. R. Anderson ed., Prentice Hall (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1963)Google Scholar
- [8]J. Slagel, J. ACM, 10, 507 (1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [9]E. Feigenbaum and A. Barr, Handbook of Artificial Intelligence, Vol. I, II, W. Kaufmann, Inc (Los Altos, CA 1982)Google Scholar
- [10]J. McCarthy, et. al., LISP 1.5 Programmeras Manual, MIT Press (Cambridge, MA, 1963); a recent incarnation is described in G. L. Steele, Common LISP: The Language, Digital Press (Burlington, MA, 1984)Google Scholar
- [11]MuMATH is available from the Soft Warehouse P.O. Box 11174, Honolulu, HI 96828; described by D. Yun and R. Stoutemyer, in “Symbolic Mathematical Computation,” Encyclopedia of Computer Science and Technology V15; M. Dekker (New York, 1980)Google Scholar
- [12]For definitions and properties of permutations, see R. Pauncz, Spin Eigenfunctions: Construction and Use, ch. 6, Plenum (New York, 1979)Google Scholar
- [12]a[12]a for algorithms for multiplying permutations see D. Knuth, The Art of Computer Programming, Vol. I ch. 1, p 160ff Addison Wesley (Reading, MA, 1968)Google Scholar
- [13]E. Davidson, J. Chem. Phys. 62, 400 (1975)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [14]E. Ruch, W. Hasselbarth, and B. Richter, Theoret. chim. Acta 19, 288 (1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [14]aW. Hasselbarth and E. Ruch, Theoret. chim. Acta, 29, 259 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [14]bW. Klemperer, J. Chem. Phys. 56, 5478 (1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [15]S. Flodmark and E. Blokker, Int. J. Quantum Chem. 1S, 703 (1967)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [16]A historical overview of computer algebra is given in reference [9]; a clear discussion is found in R. Pavelle, M. Rothstein, and J. Fitch, Scientific American, 136 (Dec. 1981); for a current review, see Computer Algebra: Symbolic and Algebraic Computation (Second Ed.), B. Buchberger, G. E. Collins, and R. Loos, with R. Albrecht, Springer-Verlag (New York, 1983); calledCASAC in the following references. A substantial effort is described in J. Neubueser’s “Computing With Groups and Their Character Tables,” CASAC p 45. J. Calmet and J. A. van Hulzen, in “Computer Algebra Applications,” CASAC p 245 remark that “[In biology and chemistry] ... computer algebra has almost no impact at all.” This observation may soon become dated.Google Scholar
- [17]Galois’ story is recounted by D. M. Bishop, Group Theory and Chemistry, Oxford U. Press (London, 1973)Google Scholar
- [18]W. Cope, “Synthetic Division of Polynomials,” in The Soft Warehouse Newsletter #7, P.O. Box 11174, Honolulu, HI 96829Google Scholar
- [19]J. Dixon, Numer. Math. 10, 446 (1967)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [19]J. Dixon, Math. Comput. 24, 707 (1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [20]E. Blokker and S. Flodmark, Int. J. Quantum Chem. 4, 463 (1971)Google Scholar
- [21]D. Knuth, The Art of Computer Programming, Vol. II ch. 4 Addison Wesley (Reading, MA, 1981); see also E. Kaltofen, “Factorization of Polynomials,” in CASAC [16], p 95Google Scholar
- [22]Altmann, [1] p 143Google Scholar
- [23]C. M. Woodman, Mol. Phys. 19, 753 (1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [24]H. C. Longuet-Higgins, Mol. Phys. 6, 445 (1963)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar