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, I-00185 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 Kobayashi-Maskawa 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/pacs03-toc.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 > >