Hi Urs,
I have no problem if you make a counter proposal on the structure of the
section. My correction to account for what you say is to mention the
effects separately in the section, but have a single entry in the table
(we are not quoting errors separately for each piece of the formula).
This way we will keep a formula based description, but will solve the
problem you point out.
Any other suggestion is welcome
ciao
ric
On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Urs Langenegger wrote:
>
> Hoi,
>
> I have updated the HEAD of CVS with some initial raw material on
> systematics. Alessio, are you going to put in your numbers as well?
> After doing so, could you please announce a (private) version of the
> BAD for us to look at tomorrow morning? In case you are not updating,
> could you nevertheless announce a private ps-file for tomorrow,
> please? I don't think we need a new BAD version, there are still too
> many things missing.
>
> Below I append a commented version of the RC questions. Feel free to
> add, correct, remove.
>
> I am not very happy with the current organization of the systematics
> chapter and would prefer a breakdown of the systematics along the
> lines of what Concezio formulated a couple days ago. It seems not
> obvious (at least to me--currently) e.g. how to separate the
> influence of kaon misid in BG_u and epsilon_sel and to avoid double
> counting.
>
> It is much easier to change the kaon (mis)id, and run the entire
> analysis chain, and determine the effect. This is also true for much
> of the other systematics.
>
> Maybe we can discuss this after the meeting with the rc.
>
> Cheers,
> --U.
>
|