[Commits] [svn:einsteintoolkit] Paper_EinsteinToolkit_2010/ (Rev. 301)

[ian.hinder at aei.mpg.de]

User: hinder
Date: 2012/03/13 03:08 AM

Modified:
 /
  ET.tex

Log:
 ET.tex: Add accuracy comment for longer waveforms and adjust wording slightly in that secton

File Changes:

Directory: /
============

File [modified]: ET.tex
Delta lines: +6 -4
===================================================================
--- ET.tex	2012-03-13 06:27:49 UTC (rev 300)
+++ ET.tex	2012-03-13 08:08:34 UTC (rev 301)
@@ -2774,15 +2774,17 @@
 should not be larger than $0.05$ radians at this reference time, and
 that this is roughly the scale of accuracy which might be useful for
 comparisons with analytic approximation methods. From the plot, we
-assert that the phase difference between the higher and high
+see that the phase difference between the higher and high
 resolutions and the one between high and medium-high resolutions
-satisfies this criterion, while the phase difference between the
+satisfy this criterion, while the phase difference between the
 medium-high and medium resolutions barely satisfies the criterion; and
-the one between medium and low resolutions does not. We conclude then
+the one between medium and low resolutions does not. We conclude
 that the three highest resolution runs do have the suggested accuracy.
 While the waveform shown here is too short for comparison with
 analytic methods, we illustrate here that these sorts of comparisons
-can be made using the toolkit.
+can be made using the toolkit.  Note that simulations starting from greater
+BBH separation leading to longer waveforms will require significantly more
+resolution to achieve the same phase error.
 
 \begin{figure}
         \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{tracks}