 |
 |
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. >