Hi all,
The K*mumu people were very fast in replying to our review. See
https://cds.cern.ch/record/1537911
I have not digested all of that yet. One cookie goes to Jeroen for having spotted a mistake in a formula.
Cheers,
Patrick
There was an addition :
Dear All,
To come back to the phi definition, I have just realised that part of the expression for sin phi in the paper draft was missing. It should have said:
\sin \phi = \left( (\hat{p}_{\mup} \times \hat{p}_{\mun}) \times (\hat{p}_{\Kp}\times \hat{p}_{\pim}) \right) \cdot \hat{p}_{\Kstarz}
I am not sure how we missed this before the draft was circulated.
Tom
https://cds.cern.ch/record/1540190?ln=en
On 04/08/2013 05:41 PM, Patrick Koppenburg wrote:
Hi all,
The K*mumu people were very fast in replying to our review. See
https://cds.cern.ch/record/1537911
I have not digested all of that yet. One cookie goes to Jeroen for having spotted a mistake in a formula.
Cheers,
Patrick
Yeah, that's what my comment was about... I have the feeling they were a bit too quick with the replies. Also for the rest of the comments I think they sometimes miss the point (maybe that was my way of formulating the questions, though).
Jeroen
On 04/09/2013 03:09 PM, Patrick Koppenburg wrote:
There was an addition :
Dear All,
To come back to the phi definition, I have just realised that part of the expression for sin phi in the paper draft was missing. It should have said:
\sin \phi = \left( (\hat{p}_{\mup} \times \hat{p}_{\mun}) \times (\hat{p}_{\Kp}\times \hat{p}_{\pim}) \right) \cdot \hat{p}_{\Kstarz}
I am not sure how we missed this before the draft was circulated.
Tom
https://cds.cern.ch/record/1540190?ln=en
On 04/08/2013 05:41 PM, Patrick Koppenburg wrote:
Hi all,
The K*mumu people were very fast in replying to our review. See
https://cds.cern.ch/record/1537911
I have not digested all of that yet. One cookie goes to Jeroen for having spotted a mistake in a formula.
Cheers,
Patrick
Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics
On 04/09/2013 04:03 PM, Jeroen van Leerdam wrote:
Yeah, that's what my comment was about... I have the feeling they were a bit too quick with the replies. Also for the rest of the comments I think they sometimes miss the point (maybe that was my way of formulating the questions, though).
if you feel you need clarifications, can you send them via CDS? here should be no open issues left after the first circulation.
Jeroen
On 04/09/2013 03:09 PM, Patrick Koppenburg wrote:
There was an addition :
Dear All,
To come back to the phi definition, I have just realised that part of the expression for sin phi in the paper draft was missing. It should have said:
\sin \phi = \left( (\hat{p}_{\mup} \times \hat{p}_{\mun}) \times (\hat{p}_{\Kp}\times \hat{p}_{\pim}) \right) \cdot \hat{p}_{\Kstarz}
I am not sure how we missed this before the draft was circulated.
Tom
https://cds.cern.ch/record/1540190?ln=en
On 04/08/2013 05:41 PM, Patrick Koppenburg wrote:
Hi all,
The K*mumu people were very fast in replying to our review. See
https://cds.cern.ch/record/1537911
I have not digested all of that yet. One cookie goes to Jeroen for having spotted a mistake in a formula.
Cheers,
Patrick
Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics
Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics
-
Jeroen van Leerdam -
Patrick Koppenburg -
Patrick Koppenburg