Talk:Post–Hartree–Fock

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chemistry Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

BO approx. and post-HF methods[edit]

I have reverted the edit that stated in the edit comment that post-Hartree-Fock methods do not assume the Born-Oppenheimer approximation. First, the statement about the Born-Oppenheimer approximation refers to the SCF process. Second, there is some confusion here in this article and the main computational chemistry page between defining "post-Hartree-Fock" as "anything better than Hartree-Fock" and, as it should be defined, as methods that start from a single determinant Hartree-Fock wave function as the reference. I will try to fix this up soon. The MCSCF method and others should not be included under post-HF. They should have their own sections. Standard MP2, CCSD, CISD methods are massively popular and are real post-HF methods. They start from the HF wave function. Anything that starts from the HF must assume the Born-Oppenheimer approximation because the HF method does. Nevertheless the anon editor was correct in that the introduction does need cleaning up. I will do it when I have a bit more time. --Bduke 22:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Karol 09:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

other methods[edit]

Besides the methods mentioned (which are the most commonly used in quantum chemistry) there are other methods like GW and quantum monte carlo (VMC and DMC) to include correlation. Is there a specific reason these are not considered post-HF? --Jaapkroe (talk) 16:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is GW? It would have been helpful if you had given links to the methods. I think quantum monte carlo is not post-HF because it goes for the solution directly and does not use HF as a reference function as do the five general classes of method mentioned in the article, CI, CC, MP2, QCI and G2 etc. They could perhaps be listed under "See also". --Bduke (Discussion) 23:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]