Hi Urs,
in your reply you seem to imply that they have the same symbols.tex file
we provided (\ell \Db). Isn't it safer to reply explaining which symbol
you want in words?
Also I don't agree on your suggested solution to:
> o Page 6, column 1, paragraph 2: We'd like to request a change to be
> fully consistent: We'd like to add bars to the 'D' in B>D(*)lnu
> (this will be consistent with page 4).
>
> It should read
>
> The uncertainties in the background modeling due to branching
> fraction measurements for $B\to \Db\ell\nu, \Db^*\ell\nu,...$ and
for
> inclusive and exclusive $D$ meson decays ~\cite{pdg2002}
> contribute 4.4\%.
because it should be \ellbar which is ugly. Why not asking \Bbar\to
D\ell\nubar as it was before?
Finally, why do you want to see another proof? I don't think it is
worthwhile delaying publication further ...
thanks
ric
______________________________________________________
Riccardo Faccini
Universita' "La Sapienza" & I.N.F.N. Roma
tel +39/06/49914798 Fax.: +39/06/4957697
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~rfaccini
Univ. La Sapienza. 2,Ple Aldo Moro, I00185 Roma Dipartimento di Fisica
"I don't understand what you say, but I believe I disagree"
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004, Urs Langenegger wrote:
>
> Hoi Ric,
>
> I did not see the 10^9 ... I have combined your and my findings
> below. Let me know if anything is not good.
>
> Cheers,
> U.
>
> 
> Re: Article LG9660
>
>
> We have read the proofs.
>
> Here are the answers to your specific requests:
> 
> 1. All authors and affiliations are correct. You have changed the way
> how the ZIP code for US institutions are displayed, and you are not
> quite consistent in doing so: Often there is a comma between the
> "state" and the "ZIP", but not always. For an example, cf affiliations
> 64, 65, 66.
>
> 2. The changes to avoid nesting are OK.
>
> 3. We checked the requested references:
>
> 1 OK
> 3 OK (in SPIRES, it's "R.J.N.~Phillips" instead of "R.J.~Phillips")
> 4 OK
> 8 OK (in SPIRES, it's JHEP instead of "J. High Energy Phys.")
> 12 This should be "Z.~Phys.~C" instead of "Z.~Phys.~B"
> 16 OK
> 19 OK
>
> 4. JETSET explanation: We propose to write
>
> for which the hadronization is performed by string fragmentation
> as implemented in the program \jetset~\cite{ref:jetset}.
>
> instead of
>
> for which the hadronization is performed by
> \jetset~\cite{ref:jetset}.
>
> Is this sufficient?
>
> 5. Do you mean the \cdot? It can be removed.
>
>
> Here are the answers to your other questions:
> 
> 1. Title, author list (except above item 1), receipt date are OK.
>
> PACS number: We had indicated PACS numbers
>
> 13.20.He "Decays of bottom mesons" in section
> "13.20.v Leptonic, semileptonic, and radiative
> decays of mesons"
> 12.15.Hh "Determination of KobayashiMaskawa matrix elements"
> 14.40.Nd "Bottom mesons"
>
> You have removed 14.40.Nd, that is OK.
>
> You have replaced 13.20.He with
>
> 13.25.Hw
>
> which seems to be in section "13.25.k Hadronic decays of mesons"
>
> This is not the right PACS, the paper is about a study of
>
> semileptonic B meson decay
>
> and according to http://www.aip.org/pacs/pacs03/pacs03toc.html
> we we think this should be 13.20.He.
>
> Do you agree?
>
> 2. In proofreading the article we find
>
> o Abstract, line 2: $89\times 10^9$ should be $89\times 10^6$
>
> o Page 4 last line of the first column and first line of the second
> one: To be fully consistent, we'd like to request a change here.
>
> This should read:
>
> $B_{reco} \rightarrow \Db Y^{+}, \Db^* Y^{+}$
>
> instead of
>
> $B_{reco} \rightarrow \Db Y^{\pm}, \Db^* Y^{\pm}$
>
>
> And the following sentence should then read
>
> 'Here, the system $Y^{+}$ consists of hadrons with a total
> charge of $+1$, '...
>
> instead of
>
> 'Here, the system $Y^{\pm}$ consists of hadrons with a total
> charge of $\pm 1$, ' ...
>
> o Page 5, column 1, paragraph 3: The exponent c^4 is wrong, it should
> be c^2: It should be
>
> candidates with $\mX<1.55 \,\mbox{GeV/}c^2
>
> instead of
>
> candidates with $\mX<1.55 \,\mbox{GeV/}c^4
>
>
> o Page 5, column 1, in the displayed equation:
>
> It should be
>
> \varepsilon_{\mX}^u
>
> instead of
>
> \varepsilon_{\mX}
>
> Also, we'd like to request a change here:
>
> In the last term, we'd like to change the subscript 'l' to a
> subscript '\ell', i.e. it should read
>
> \times \frac{\varepsilon_\ell^{sl} \varepsilon_{reco}^{sl} } {\varepsilon_\ell^u \varepsilon_{reco}^u }.
>
> instead of
>
> \times \frac{\varepsilon_l^{sl} \varepsilon_{reco}^{sl} } {\varepsilon_l^u \varepsilon_{reco}^u }.
>
>
> o Page 6, column 1, paragraph 2: We'd like to request a change to be
> fully consistent: We'd like to add bars to the 'D' in B>D(*)lnu
> (this will be consistent with page 4).
>
> It should read
>
> The uncertainties in the background modeling due to branching
> fraction measurements for $B\to \Db\ell\nu, \Db^*\ell\nu,...$ and for
> inclusive and exclusive $D$ meson decays ~\cite{pdg2002}
> contribute 4.4\%.
>
> instead of
>
> The uncertainties in the background modeling due to branching
> fraction measurements for $B\to D\ell\nu, D^*\ell\nu,...$ and for
> inclusive and exclusive $D$ meson decays ~\cite{pdg2002}
> contribute 4.4\%.
>
>
>
> 3. Figures: Figure 1 has a worse quality than Fig 3 (and 2). Printing
> from the pdf, the axes labels are not clear. This should be
> improved.
>
> Can we see the very final version again?
>
> Sincerely,
> Urs Langenegger
>
>
