 |
 |
no, maybe who did the last round of systematics forgot to commit the changes. Does anybody have the latest ddecay.table and forgot to commit it? ciao 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, 9 Mar 2004, Kerstin Tackmann wrote: > > > Hi Ric, > > comparing quite some values (not all, but quite some) between > > ddecay.table > BAD 540v9 Table 16 > PDG 2000 > PDG 2002 > > I have the impression that the BAD Table has the PDG 2002 values and the > ddecay.table has the PDG 2000 values. I just wonder if there is some > reason for this (it does not look like cut and paste errors between the > BAD and ddecay.table). > > Kerstin > > > > On Sun, 8 Feb 2004, Riccardo Faccini wrote: > > > the ddecay file is the correct one. The mistakes areincorrect cut and > > pastes ... > > If you could edit > > BAD/note540 we would really be grateful ... alternatively a list of > > mistakes you find is welcome > > ciao > > 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 Sat, 7 Feb 2004, Kerstin Tackmann wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > comparing ddecay.table with the table you have in the BAD 540v9 (table 16, > > > p.85) I noticed that some of the values do not agree, this occurs for both > > > the PDG values and the MC values listed. Have there been changes in the MC > > > (and the measured values) since then? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Kerstin > > > > > > > > >