Hoi Ric,
> at this point I would remove 'this measurement represents a challenge'
> since it is no more useful
I combined it with the following sentence. I propose to convey the
message that a measurement of Vub is non trivial (which may be
necessary for a PRL audience?).
> reference [2] is not used and I would drop the second part of it: if you
> specify what D(*) means you should also say what D^(**) is ...
I am not sure I understand "not used", it appears at the bottom of
column 1 on page 4 (where it is necessary, I think). You have a point
about D**, and I don't know the solution. The "()" explanation was
included also in the D(*)D(*) paper ...
> "the prompt lepton yield is extracted with the BB~ mixing parameter" doen
> not make too much sense to me. I prefer what was suggested to us by Bob
> in the CW review "and the average mixing rate was used to extract
> the prompt lepton yield."
I have taken over Bob's recommendation.
I have to admit though, that for me naively it makes things not more
clear than the previous very terse formulation. Does "average" mean
"time" or "world" or both? Furthermore, we don't measure correlations,
but rather leptons. But I have nothing better at the moment.
> take away 'in data' in the caption of fig 2b
OK
> 'removing removing ' (in K0l session)
OK
> table II: 'missing (%) in the second column labelling' I would change
> the caption into 'Summary of systematic uncertainties', thus saving a line
> ...
OK
> too many digits in the measurements of lambda_bar and lamda_1
Changed LambdaBar, but not lambda1. This is along the lines of CLEO's
publication. I don't feel strongly about it, if anybody prefers
lambda1 to be given to two digits, please do so.
Cheers,
--U.
|