docs(qft): add Feynman diagram and topological field theory API maps

[Robby955]

Motivation

Related to #1414, the tracking maps for the Feynman diagram API in #882 and the topological field theory API in #877. Following the discussion in #1414, an API with no implementation yet still gets a map in the file system with every requirement marked not done; these are two of those.

Changes

Adds Physlib/QFT/PerturbationTheory/FeynmanDiagrams/API-map.yaml and Physlib/QFT/TopologicalFieldTheory/API-map.yaml. Every requirement in both is recorded as not done with location N/A, 6 in the first and 17 in the second, so each map is specification only. The Feynman diagram directory holds Basic.lean, which states the intended design in its module documentation and declares nothing, so the map writes that design out as requirements and names the perturbation-theory APIs a diagram type would sit on. Physlib/QFT/TopologicalFieldTheory has no Lean file at all and now contains only the map; check_file_imports walks .lean files alone, so the import check is unaffected. Nothing outside the two new files changes, and no Lean source is touched.

FeynmanDiagrams/Basic.lean asks that you be contacted before anyone works in that directory. I have added only the map there and changed no Lean file, but say the word and I will drop that half and keep the topological field theory map alone.

Checks

python3 scripts/api_map_linter.py --repo . passes with no missing files and no missing names. Both new maps report zero checked entries, since no requirement claims a location.

[github-actions]

Thank you for this pull-request (PR). If this is your first PR, welcome to the community!

Below is what will happen next. Please read carefully if you are not familiar with the process. You may open other PRs while this one is being reviewed, and can stack PRs on top of each other, so don't let these steps slow you down.

1. Some automated checks will be run on your PR. You can see the results of these checks at the buttom of your PR page. If any of these checks fail, you will need to fix the issues before your PR can be merged. You can learn more about these here, including how to run them locally, which is sometimes quicker than relying on the GitHub Actions. If you have never had a PR merged before, you may have to wait for a reviewer to manually start these checks (this is for security).

2. A reviewer will look at your PR and may ask you to make changes. This may happen a couple of days after you submit your PR, so you may need to be patient. But it should not be longer than that - if it is please bring it to the attention of the community on the Zulip. The level of review will depend on where your PR is submitted. If it is submitted to ./Physlib or ./QuantumInfo, the review will be more thorough than if it is submitted to ./PhyslibAlpha. You can find out more about what the review process is looking for in our review guidelines. If a reviewer adds an awaiting-author label to your PR, address the review comments, then please remove that label by adding a comment with -awaiting-author. This helps us keep track of reviews.

3. The reviewer will either approve your PR, or request more changes (in which case we return to step 2). Once your PR is approved, it will be merged by a maintainer, this should happen shortly after approval, though you may get more comments at this stage.

Tip: The easiest way to get have a fast review is to submit a PR that is small and self-contained, and has clear documentation explaining why things are the way they are in your chages.

If you have any problems or questions, please reach out to the community on the Zulip.