[Users] Mclachan, CCZ4: Wrong "phi" term in Ricci tensor?

[Erik Schnetter]

The current implementation of the CCZ4 formulation in McLachlan
contains the expression (2/phi) in the definition of R[li,lj].
However, the meaning of phi depends on the conformalMethod, and this
is not explicitly taken into account here. Is this wrong?

-erik

-- 
Erik Schnetter <schnetter at cct.lsu.edu>
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/personal/eschnetter/