Fix image location for prettyurls

Author: leburgel

docs/make.jl

@@ -12,8 +12,8 @@ makedocs(; modules=[TensorKit, TensorKitSectors],
          sitename="TensorKit.jl",
          authors="Jutho Haegeman",
          warnonly=[:missing_docs, :cross_references],
-         format=Documenter.HTML(; prettyurls=get(ENV, "CI", nothing) == "true",
-                                mathengine=MathJax(), assets=["assets/custom.css"]),
+         format=Documenter.HTML(; prettyurls=true, mathengine=MathJax(),
+                                assets=["assets/custom.css"]),
          pages=pages,
          pagesonly=true)
 

docs/src/man/categories.md

@@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ circuit convention). Throughout this manual, we stick to this latter convention
 not very common in manuscripts on category theory):
 
 ```@raw html
-<img src="img/diagram_morphism.svg" alt="composition" class="color-invertible"/>
+<img src="../img/diagram_morphism.svg" alt="composition" class="color-invertible"/>
 ```
 
 The direction of the arrows, which become important once we introduce duals, are also
@@ -171,7 +171,7 @@ morphisms, and for a general morphism ``t`` between a tensor product of objects
 and target:
 
 ```@raw html
-<img src="img/diagram-tensorproduct.svg" alt="tensorproduct" class="color-invertible"/>
+<img src="../img/diagram-tensorproduct.svg" alt="tensorproduct" class="color-invertible"/>
 ```
 
 Another relevant example is the category ``\mathbf{SVect}_𝕜``, which has as objects *super
@@ -263,7 +263,7 @@ coevaluation of ``V`` and ``W``, such that ``{}^{∨}W ⊗ {}^{∨}V`` is at lea
 Graphically, we represent the exact pairing and snake rules as
 
 ```@raw html
-<img src="img/diagram-leftdual.svg" alt="left dual" class="color-invertible"/>
+<img src="../img/diagram-leftdual.svg" alt="left dual" class="color-invertible"/>
 ```
 
 Note that we denote the dual objects ``{}^{∨}V`` as a line ``V`` with arrows pointing in the
@@ -276,7 +276,7 @@ associated pairings, the right evaluation ``\tilde{ϵ}_V: V ⊗ V^{∨} → I``
 ``\tilde{η}_V: I → V^{∨} ⊗ V``, satisfying
 
 ```@raw html
-<img src="img/diagram-rightdual.svg" alt="right dual" class="color-invertible"/>
+<img src="../img/diagram-rightdual.svg" alt="right dual" class="color-invertible"/>
 ```
 
 In particular, one could choose ``\tilde{ϵ}_{{}^{∨}V} = ϵ_V`` and thus define ``V`` as the
@@ -287,7 +287,7 @@ If objects ``V`` and ``W`` have left (respectively right) duals, than for a morp
 *transpose* ``{}^{∨}f ∈ \mathrm{Hom}({}^{∨}V, {}^{∨}W)`` (respectively  ``f^{∨} ∈ \mathrm{Hom}(V^{∨}, W^{∨})``) as
 
 ```@raw html
-<img src="img/diagram-transpose.svg" alt="transpose" class="color-invertible"/>
+<img src="../img/diagram-transpose.svg" alt="transpose" class="color-invertible"/>
 ```
 
 where on the right we also illustrate the mapping from
@@ -350,7 +350,7 @@ and a right trace as
 They are graphically represented as
 
 ```@raw html
-<img src="img/diagram-trace.svg" alt="trace" class="color-invertible"/>
+<img src="../img/diagram-trace.svg" alt="trace" class="color-invertible"/>
 ```
 
 and they do not need to coincide. Note that
@@ -404,13 +404,13 @@ The braiding isomorphism ``τ_{V,W}`` and its inverse are graphically represente
 lines ``V`` and ``W`` crossing over and under each other:
 
 ```@raw html
-<img src="img/diagram-braiding.svg" alt="braiding" class="color-invertible"/>
+<img src="../img/diagram-braiding.svg" alt="braiding" class="color-invertible"/>
 ```
 
 such that we have
 
 ```@raw html
-<img src="img/diagram-braiding2.svg" alt="braiding relations" class="color-invertible"/>
+<img src="../img/diagram-braiding2.svg" alt="braiding relations" class="color-invertible"/>
 ```
 
 where the expression on the right hand side, ``τ_{W,V}∘τ_{V,W}`` can generically not be
@@ -437,7 +437,7 @@ The braiding of a space and a dual space also follows naturally, it is given by
 ``τ_{V^*,W} = λ_{W ⊗ V^*} ∘ (ϵ_V ⊗ \mathrm{id}_{W ⊗ V^*}) ∘ (\mathrm{id}_{V^*} ⊗ τ_{V,W}^{-1} ⊗ \mathrm{id}_{V^*}) ∘ (\mathrm{id}_{V^*⊗ W} ⊗ η_V) ∘ ρ_{V^* ⊗ W}^{-1}``, i.e.
 
 ```@raw html
-<img src="img/diagram-braidingdual.svg" alt="braiding dual" class="color-invertible"/>
+<img src="../img/diagram-braidingdual.svg" alt="braiding dual" class="color-invertible"/>
 ```
 
 **Balanced categories** ``C`` are braided categories that come with a **twist** ``θ``, a
@@ -460,7 +460,7 @@ where we omitted the necessary left and right unitors and associators. Graphical
 twists and their inverse (for which we refer to [^turaev]) are then represented as
 
 ```@raw html
-<img src="img/diagram-twists.svg" alt="twists" class="color-invertible"/>
+<img src="../img/diagram-twists.svg" alt="twists" class="color-invertible"/>
 ```
 
 The graphical representation also makes it straightforward to verify that
@@ -486,7 +486,7 @@ structure, or, to define the exact pairing for the right dual functor as
 or graphically
 
 ```@raw html
-<img src="img/diagram-pivotalfromtwist.svg" alt="pivotal from twist" class="color-invertible"/>
+<img src="../img/diagram-pivotalfromtwist.svg" alt="pivotal from twist" class="color-invertible"/>
 ```
 
 where we have drawn ``θ`` as ``θ^{\mathrm{l}}`` on the left and as ``θ^{\mathrm{r}}`` on
@@ -543,7 +543,7 @@ the morphism around a horizontal axis, and then reversing all arrows (bringing t
 their original orientation before the mirror operation):
 
 ```@raw html
-<img src="img/diagram-dagger.svg" alt="dagger" class="color-invertible"/>
+<img src="../img/diagram-dagger.svg" alt="dagger" class="color-invertible"/>
 ```
 
 where for completeness we have also depicted the graphical representation of the transpose,
@@ -729,7 +729,7 @@ fusion category, on which we now focus, the corresponding projection maps are
 Graphically, we represent these relations as
 
 ```@raw html
-<img src="img/diagram-fusion.svg" alt="fusion" class="color-invertible"/>
+<img src="../img/diagram-fusion.svg" alt="fusion" class="color-invertible"/>
 ```
 
 and also refer to the inclusion and projection maps as splitting and fusion tensor,
@@ -771,7 +771,7 @@ thus represent a unitary basis transform between the basis of inclusion maps
 i.e. graphically:
 
 ```@raw html
-<img src="img/diagram-Fmove.svg" alt="Fmove" class="color-invertible"/>
+<img src="../img/diagram-Fmove.svg" alt="Fmove" class="color-invertible"/>
 ```
 
 The matrix ``F^{abc}_d`` is thus a unitary matrix. The pentagon coherence equation can also
@@ -786,7 +786,7 @@ triangle equation and its collaries imply that
 ``F^{ab1}_c``, which are graphically represented as
 
 ```@raw html
-<img src="img/diagram-Fmove1.svg" alt="Fmove1" class="color-invertible"/>
+<img src="../img/diagram-Fmove1.svg" alt="Fmove1" class="color-invertible"/>
 ```
 
 In the case of group representations, i.e. the category ``\mathbf{Rep}_{\mathsf{G}}``, the
@@ -834,7 +834,7 @@ or thus ``χ_a = ±1``. This value is a topological invariant known as the
 *Frobenius-Schur indicator*. Graphically, we represent this isomorphism and its relations as
 
 ```@raw html
-<img src="img/diagram-Zisomorphism.svg" alt="Zisomorphism" class="color-invertible"/>
+<img src="../img/diagram-Zisomorphism.svg" alt="Zisomorphism" class="color-invertible"/>
 ```
 
 We can now discuss the relation between the exact pairing and the fusion and splitting
@@ -855,14 +855,14 @@ encoded in the F-symbol. Hence, they do not represent new independent data. Agai
 graphical representation is more enlightning:
 
 ```@raw html
-<img src="img/diagram-ZtoF.svg" alt="ZtoF" class="color-invertible"/>
+<img src="../img/diagram-ZtoF.svg" alt="ZtoF" class="color-invertible"/>
 ```
 
 With these definitions, we can now also evaluate the action of the evaluation map on the
 splitting tensors, namely
 
 ```@raw html
-<img src="img/diagram-splittingfusionrelation.svg" alt="splittingfusionrelation" class="color-invertible"/>
+<img src="../img/diagram-splittingfusionrelation.svg" alt="splittingfusionrelation" class="color-invertible"/>
 ```
 
 where again bar denotes complex conjugation in the second line, and we introduced two new
@@ -880,7 +880,7 @@ the resulting element ``f ∈ \mathrm{End}(a)`` must satisfy
 ``f = d_a^{-1} \mathrm{tr}(f) \mathrm{id}_a``, i.e.
 
 ```@raw html
-<img src="img/diagram-Brelation.svg" alt="Brelation" class="color-invertible"/>
+<img src="../img/diagram-Brelation.svg" alt="Brelation" class="color-invertible"/>
 ```
 
 allows to conclude that
@@ -932,7 +932,7 @@ the simple objects. We can then express ``τ_{a,b}`` in terms of its matrix elem
 or graphically
 
 ```@raw html
-<img src="img/diagram-braidingR.svg" alt="braidingR" class="color-invertible"/>
+<img src="../img/diagram-braidingR.svg" alt="braidingR" class="color-invertible"/>
 ```
 
 The hexagon coherence axiom for the braiding and the associator can then be reexpressed in
@@ -946,7 +946,7 @@ complex phases because of unitarity) multiplying the identity morphism, i.e.
 or graphically
 
 ```@raw html
-<img src="img/diagram-simpletwist.svg" alt="simpletwist" class="color-invertible"/>
+<img src="../img/diagram-simpletwist.svg" alt="simpletwist" class="color-invertible"/>
 ```
 
 Henceforth, we reserve ``θ_a`` for the scalar value itself. Note that ``θ_a = θ_{\bar{a}}``
@@ -959,7 +959,7 @@ If ``a = \bar{a}``, we can furthermore relate the twist, the braiding and the Fr
 Schur indicator via ``θ_a χ_a R^{aa}_1 =1``, because of
 
 ```@raw html
-<img src="img/diagram-twistfrobeniusschur.svg" alt="twistfrobeniusschur" class="color-invertible"/>
+<img src="../img/diagram-twistfrobeniusschur.svg" alt="twistfrobeniusschur" class="color-invertible"/>
 ```
 
 For the recurring example of ``\mathbf{Rep}_{\mathsf{G}}``, the braiding acts simply as the

docs/src/man/sectors.md

@@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ There is a graphical representation associated with the fusion tensors and their
 manipulations, which we summarize here:
 
 ```@raw html
-<img src="img/tree-summary.svg" alt="summary" class="color-invertible"/>
+<img src="../img/tree-summary.svg" alt="summary" class="color-invertible"/>
 ```
 
 As always, we refer to the subsection on
@@ -891,7 +891,7 @@ for a given tensor mapping from ``(((W_1 ⊗ W_2) ⊗ W_3) ⊗ … )⊗ W_{N_2})
 ⊗ V_3) ⊗ … )⊗ V_{N_1})``, the corresponding fusion and splitting trees take the form
 
 ```@raw html
-<img src="img/tree-simple.svg" alt="double fusion tree" class="color-invertible"/>
+<img src="../img/tree-simple.svg" alt="double fusion tree" class="color-invertible"/>
 ```
 
 for the specific case ``N_1=4`` and ``N_2=3``. We can separate this tree into the fusing
@@ -926,7 +926,7 @@ codomain and the second space in the domain of the tensor were dual spaces, the
 of splitting and fusion tree would look as
 
 ```@raw html
-<img src="img/tree-extended.svg" alt="extended double fusion tree" class="color-invertible"/>
+<img src="../img/tree-extended.svg" alt="extended double fusion tree" class="color-invertible"/>
 ```
 
 The presence of these isomorphisms will be important when we start to bend lines, to move
@@ -1011,7 +1011,7 @@ The following represents two different ways to compute the result of such a brai
 linear combination of new fusion trees in canonical order:
 
 ```@raw html
-<img src="img/tree-artinbraid.svg" alt="artin braid" class="color-invertible"/>
+<img src="../img/tree-artinbraid.svg" alt="artin braid" class="color-invertible"/>
 ```
 
 While the upper path is the most intuitive, it requires two recouplings or F-moves (one
@@ -1049,7 +1049,7 @@ Artin generators. A graphical example makes this probably more clear, i.e for
 `levels=(1,2,3,4,5)` and `permutation=(5,3,1,4,2)`, the corresponding braid is given by
 
 ```@raw html
-<img src="img/tree-braidinterface.svg" alt="braid interface" class="color-invertible"/>
+<img src="../img/tree-braidinterface.svg" alt="braid interface" class="color-invertible"/>
 ```
 
 that is, the first sector or space goes to position 3, and crosses over all other lines,
@@ -1129,7 +1129,7 @@ between the (co)evaluation (exact pairing) and the fusion tensors, discussed in
 that we need is summarized in
 
 ```@raw html
-<img src="img/tree-linebending.svg" alt="line bending" class="color-invertible"/>
+<img src="../img/tree-linebending.svg" alt="line bending" class="color-invertible"/>
 ```
 
 We will only need the B-symbol and not the A-symbol. Applying the left evaluation on the
@@ -1144,7 +1144,7 @@ adjoint) is already present. Indeed, it is exactly for this operation that we ex
 need to take the presence of these isomorphisms into account. Indeed, we obtain the relation
 
 ```@raw html
-<img src="img/tree-linebending2.svg" alt="dual line bending" class="color-invertible"/>
+<img src="../img/tree-linebending2.svg" alt="dual line bending" class="color-invertible"/>
 ```
 
 Hence, bending an `isdual` sector from the splitting tree to the fusion tree yields an
@@ -1168,7 +1168,7 @@ Graphically, for `N₁ = 4`, `N₂ = 3`, `N = 2` and some particular choice of `
 the fusion and splitting tree:
 
 ```@raw html
-<img src="img/tree-repartition.svg" alt="repartition" class="color-invertible"/>
+<img src="../img/tree-repartition.svg" alt="repartition" class="color-invertible"/>
 ```
 
 The result is returned as a dictionary with keys `(f1′, f2′)` and the corresponding `coeff`

docs/src/man/tensors.md

@@ -149,7 +149,7 @@ fusiontrees((a1, …, aN₁), c)` as ``X^{a_1, …, a_{N₁}}_{c,α}`` where
 [corresponding section](@ref ss_fusiontrees). The tensor is then represented as
 
 ```@raw html
-<img src="img/tensor-storage.svg" alt="tensor storage" class="color-invertible"/>
+<img src="../img/tensor-storage.svg" alt="tensor storage" class="color-invertible"/>
 ```
 
 In this diagram, we have indicated how the tensor map can be rewritten in terms of a block
@@ -172,7 +172,7 @@ To understand this better, we need to understand the basis transform, e.g. on th
 (codomain) side. In more detail, it is given by
 
 ```@raw html
-<img src="img/tensor-unitary.svg" alt="tensor unitary" class="color-invertible"/>
+<img src="../img/tensor-unitary.svg" alt="tensor unitary" class="color-invertible"/>
 ```
 
 Indeed, remembering that ``V_i = ⨁_{a_i} R_{a_i} ⊗ ℂ^{n_{a_i}}`` with ``R_{a_i}`` the
@@ -802,7 +802,7 @@ makes clear that this introduces an additional (inverse) twist, which is then co
 in the `transpose` implementation.
 
 ```@raw html
-<img src="img/tensor-transpose.svg" alt="transpose" class="color-invertible"/>
+<img src="../img/tensor-transpose.svg" alt="transpose" class="color-invertible"/>
 ```
 
 In categorical language, the reason for this extra twist is that we use the left
@@ -1159,7 +1159,7 @@ trivial domain, we just have one type of unconnected lines, henceforth called op
 We sketch such a rearrangement in the following picture
 
 ```@raw html
-<img src="img/tensor-bosoniccontraction.svg" alt="tensor unitary" class="color-invertible"/>
+<img src="../img/tensor-bosoniccontraction.svg" alt="tensor unitary" class="color-invertible"/>
 ```
 
 Hence, we can now specify such a tensor diagram, henceforth called a tensor contraction or
@@ -1229,7 +1229,7 @@ can be omitted, and we just use the same rules to evaluate the newly ordered ten
 network. For the particular case of matrix matrix multiplication, which also captures more general settings by appropriotely combining spaces into a single line, we indeed find
 
 ```@raw html
-<img src="img/tensor-contractionreorder.svg" alt="tensor contraction reorder" class="color-invertible"/>
+<img src="../img/tensor-contractionreorder.svg" alt="tensor contraction reorder" class="color-invertible"/>
 ```
 
 or thus, the following to lines of code yield the same result