Talk:Slater–Condon rules: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
m moved Talk:Slater-Condon rules to Talk:Slater–Condon rules: ndash |
→Proof Needed: new section |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{chemistry}} |
{{chemistry}} |
||
== Proof Needed == |
|||
Does anyone have a link to an article with the proof of these "rules" .... because they aren't rules in the strict sense (because we don't define these values as such, they can be proven from other more basic rules). |
|||
Or does anyone have the time to do the proof on their own? |
Revision as of 23:05, 30 December 2011
Chemistry Unassessed | ||||||||||
|
Proof Needed
Does anyone have a link to an article with the proof of these "rules" .... because they aren't rules in the strict sense (because we don't define these values as such, they can be proven from other more basic rules). Or does anyone have the time to do the proof on their own?