<html>#2119: The binary neutron star gallery example gives different results with the release candiate.
<table style='border-spacing: 1ex 0pt; '>
<tr><td style='text-align:right'> Reporter:</td><td>Peter Diener</td></tr>
<tr><td style='text-align:right'> Status:</td><td>open</td></tr>
<tr><td style='text-align:right'>Milestone:</td><td>ET_2019_10</td></tr>
<tr><td style='text-align:right'> Version:</td><td>development version</td></tr>
<tr><td style='text-align:right'> Type:</td><td>bug</td></tr>
<tr><td style='text-align:right'> Priority:</td><td>minor</td></tr>
<tr><td style='text-align:right'>Component:</td><td>Other</td></tr>
</table>
<p>Comment (by Zach Etienne):</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The comparison run finished and the results differ a bit from the original Zwicky results, but only in the post-merger, where I would accept issues such as different levels of IEEE compliance (between gcc and icc) to matter.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In that case I’d suggest perturbing the initial data at the least significant digit to confirm or refute. The wave amplitude seems too high for roundoff to be responsible for the discrepancy. You could also try the same run with Lean?</p>
<p></p>
<p>--<br/>
Ticket URL: <a href='https://bitbucket.org/einsteintoolkit/tickets/issues/2119/the-binary-neutron-star-gallery-example'>https://bitbucket.org/einsteintoolkit/tickets/issues/2119/the-binary-neutron-star-gallery-example</a></p>
</html>