Timeline for What are some recent developments in density functional theory?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 18, 2020 at 8:37 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Jun 15, 2020 at 7:32 | comment | added | B. Kelly | Unfortunately I cannot be of assistance on that question :( | |
| Jun 15, 2020 at 1:17 | comment | added | Nike Dattani - No Free Time | I'm curious if you might have some insight into this question? materials.stackexchange.com/q/647/5 It's been unanswered for 30 days, and the author said on Meta that he would put a bounty on it if someone answers it. | |
| Jun 13, 2020 at 16:38 | comment | added | Nike Dattani - No Free Time | I've made some effort to make the this more compact (sticking to my 3-paragraph format, whereas before it was 5 paragraphs). The $r_{12}$ was only $r$ in the original papers, and it looks "cleaner" that way (fortunately in this case not being at the expense of ambiguity against $r_{34}$ or something like that). You're welcome to change it back if you are dissatisfied with these changes. | |
| Jun 13, 2020 at 16:34 | history | edited | Nike Dattani - No Free Time | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 45 characters in body
|
| Jun 11, 2020 at 1:34 | comment | added | Nike Dattani - No Free Time | I have edited it to follow the format of all the other answers, and I also made it more compact (there wasn't a need for the "conclusion" heading to be just as big as the title heading of the answer! And there was an unnecessarily large gap between the references. Does Jensen's book need to be cited here? In the interest of providing useful but compact summaries, citations to tangentially related books might not be needed. I could have cited Jensen's book too I guess, and I guess all 7 of the answers here can end with a citation to that book! Doesn't seem necessary though :) | |
| Jun 11, 2020 at 1:30 | history | edited | Nike Dattani - No Free Time | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 19 characters in body
|
| S Jun 4, 2020 at 22:09 | history | suggested | TAR86 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
improve formatting, typos
|
| Jun 4, 2020 at 20:24 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jun 4, 2020 at 22:09 | |||||
| Jun 4, 2020 at 4:55 | comment | added | Nike Dattani - No Free Time | Thanks for noting that difference. As for the origin of the idea to use HF for the long-range: the CAM-B3LYP paper you cited says that they got the idea from Tsuneda, but the Tsuneda paper was cited as "in press". Maybe it took from 2004-2014 for it to get pressed! | |
| Jun 4, 2020 at 4:47 | comment | added | B. Kelly | The Heyd-Scuseria-Ernzerhof functional, which you link, is an inverse separation. It used HF for the short range where as my post is about using it as the long range. HSE is used for solid state calculations | |
| Jun 4, 2020 at 4:36 | comment | added | B. Kelly | Mine is from frank Jensen book. He attributes it to Tsuneda and Hiao (2014), but CAM-B3LYP was doing the general idea in 2004 | |
| Jun 4, 2020 at 4:35 | comment | added | Nike Dattani - No Free Time | Charlie: Your equation seems to be the same as Eq. 1 of this paper: aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.1564060, which according to Tyberius is the paper where "screened functionals" were first introduced. | |
| Jun 4, 2020 at 3:55 | comment | added | Nike Dattani - No Free Time | It is very appreciated Charlie. As for the question asking for "Milestones" instead of a single "Milestone", I did not catch that, because I figured that after 20 people each give 1 milestone, there will be several milestones listed. However I will edit the question to make it even more clear and unambiguous! | |
| Jun 4, 2020 at 3:49 | comment | added | B. Kelly | sure, but OP should use singular language too :) | |
| Jun 4, 2020 at 3:47 | history | edited | B. Kelly | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 1074 characters in body
|
| Jun 4, 2020 at 3:42 | comment | added | Nike Dattani - No Free Time | I appreciate the homage to $\omega$B97-XD, but I wonder if you would mind shortening it perhaps to just one or the other and keeping it to somewhere between 1-3 paragraphs like the dispersion corrections section? It would be nice if we could have about 20 compact, short summaries of recent milestones in DFT. It's also what both the asker and the bounty granter have asked for. Currently we are also having a discussion about whether or not to allow double-answers like this on our site. I fully appreciate all the time you took to write this full answer: Perhaps you give a link to longer version? | |
| Jun 4, 2020 at 3:38 | history | edited | B. Kelly | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 205 characters in body
|
| Jun 4, 2020 at 3:30 | history | answered | B. Kelly | CC BY-SA 4.0 |