@ChrisWhite The terminal output tells you what the expectation value of the Polyakov loop, and the expectation of its absolute value are. Same is stored in the filename you input, and in #number.dat there are the values of each sweep for #number gridsize

Oh man Quisqueya is such a bitch...

She ratted on Mayor!

I constantly get ~0.001 - 0.1 for the value, and ~0.85 for the absolute value

(Values as large as 0.1 I only get for low sweep number or very small grid)

@0celo7 literally no idea what you're talking about

@FenderLesPaul Remember the book I was talking about

I'm sharing the highlights

aaaaand another 100 pages down

A novel?

yes

@ACuriousMind Now I have very little understanding of what you're trying to do, but as everyone else is looking at the code, I had to too. The grid was very small: are you sure you are supposed to see a phase transition at these sizes?

It's turning out to be Romeo & Juliet with immigrants and a brain-damaged girl...not a pleasant read.

For school

Yes

The SJWs have taken over admissions apparently

@ChrisWhite One should see the value rising with the gridsize for at least some of the betas, approximately linearly

@alarge That's what I asked my lecturer, too. He said "Yes.".

What are SJWs @0celo7

grr

I still can't into copy+paste on PCs

@skullpatrol urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=SJW

I'm not fully convinced, especially since the reference papers he sent me report their data completely differently, talking about "renormalized values of the loop" and so on, but they also say their gridsize was a whooping 4, and I can't see any non-trivial behaviour in my simulation at all.

The one white person in the book is a white trash, racist, rapist.

:O

How is that social justice?

Also, I can't make heads or tails of their graphs...they label the axis by $\mathrm{tr}(W)$, which means it should lie between -2 and 2. Then the axis goes from 0 to 16...

@skullpatrol SJW does not actually imply justice, simply justice in the (warped) mind of the SJW.

@ACuriousMind exp(S_diff) < gsl_rng_uniform(r) this the MC condition?

I think I flipped the >

In any case, that branch is never reached.

@alarge Ah, that part of the code is currently not in use, but yes, that's the Metropolis acceptance step.

Ah, ok.

I implemented MC-Metropolis to compare it against the current MC-Heatbath update

It takes longer to thermalize, but it gives the same results

StapleInDir hurts my head. Does it work?

@0celo7 how did they get into admissions?

@skullpatrol no clue

@alarge Ah, yes, that's the 100 lines I said I could have less if I'd stored the links differently. I tested it with a fixed lattice configuration where I computed some of the staples by hand - at least in that test case, it did what it was supposed to

Also you might want to add "-O3 -march=native" to your compiler options (for speed, but apparently the algo is so fast this is not really necessary). Your code also does waaaay too much copying, but if performance is not really a concern, it's ok I suppose.

@alarge curious to look. missed where the code was posted...? maybe some of this can be chalked up to difficulty in replicating others results. aka "open science".

TIL ACM can't code efficiently

You need to get into their "warped minds" and find out

Your mission ^

@0celo7

no, I want nothing to do with them

How many pages is this book?

@alarge I'm sure experienced programmers would write this thing differently, but it's the first longer piece of code I've written in years, and never really in C before, so the efficient use of pointers is not to be expected ;)

~284

-_-

I've sufficiently recovered from my last session. Time for more Metro.

@ACuriousMind In StapleInDir, are you not supposed to evaluate anything at "current lattice point"? I mean if STAPDIR is XDIR, you look up stuff at x+1 and x-1, but nothing at x.

@ChrisWhite If it makes you feel better, i understood all of that.

ACM: M_PI is in math.h for a reason ;)

@alarge The lookup for the thing at current lattice point is independent of the directions switches, and is done before the case...switch in Aux = GetLink(t,x,y,z,StapDIR); SF = MatHermConj(&Aux);

Also...you actually looked closer at that staple function? I really don't want to keep you from doing something...more fun

what if he thinks this is fun?

@KyleKanos I may be dumb, but I couldn't get that to work, so I made my own pi :|

CHECKPOINT

YES

A lot of people do that too, but I'm just saying that M_PI exists

I probably misunderstood where to put the __use__math__defines

you had to wait for a guy to go throw up his dinner so you can kill his buddy

And the } } } } } is killing me

Ah, use math defines..

@KyleKanos Am I supposed to use five lines for that?

(Honest question)

I honestly would (and have edited my copy of your code to do that)

I reminds me of Fortran coders who write enddo;enddo;enddo;enddo; on one line

But I know that a lot of programmers hate using lines for single braces

There's also what Chris said

@ChrisWhite Though do you use a single line like if ( condition ) foo(x); or is foo on the next line?

@ChrisWhite My dad learned programming on a punch-card machine at midnight (when the undergrads were allowed to run code). He says you can never have enough braces.

@ACuriousMind You can just drop all the braces in those two places. They're redundant anyway.EDIT: Yeah, as ChrisWhite said.

See I'd do all on the same line to ensure the future users know that it's what acts when if is true

I see. I'll probably drop my safety braces if I code more in the future

@ChrisWhite "unsafe" in what sense?