 |
 |
Hi Urs, are you using the latest chains? My understanding was that on those chains (after a set of bug fixes) the blind result was more like 0.019, while here you still find 0.02 ciao ric ______________________________________________________ Riccardo Faccini U.C. San Diego, Universita' "La Sapienza" & I.N.F.N. Roma tel +39/06/49914338 http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~rfaccini Univ. La Sapienza. 2,Ple Aldo Moro, I-00100 Roma Dipartimento di Fisica "If you can dream--and not make dreams your master" (R. Kipling) On Wed, 19 Jun 2002, Urs Langenegger wrote: > > Hoi, > > the following contains scans for mm2 and mx with the parametrization > of the theoretical error as currently implemented in the fit > (i.e. determined with generated MX). The study cutting on the fitted > Mx will follow: > > http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~ursl/talks/062002/mx-stability.eps > http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~ursl/talks/062002/mm-stability.eps > > The mx scan does not reveal anything new compared to Daniele's plot, > except that the theoretical error is added in quadrature (this is the > outer error bars, the inner error bars are just the statistical > error). > > The numbers for the points are contained in > > http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~ursl/talks/062002/mx-stability.txt > http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~ursl/talks/062002/mm-stability.txt > > Here, the errors in parentheses are the combined absolute and relative > errors (on BRBR), respectively. > > Cheers, > --U. > >