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

[Barry Wardell]

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 7:18 PM, Erik Schnetter <schnetter at cct.lsu.edu>wrote:

> 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?


So far, the CCZ4 formulation has only been tested with the W conformal
method. In principal it should work, but given that it hasn't really been
tested it is possible that there are bugs. In this case, this looks like a
bug to me and this term should be different if the W conformal method is
not used. Given how close we are to a release, should we just add a note to
the release notes (or elsewhere) stating that only the W method currently
works?

Barry
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.einsteintoolkit.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20120518/d2d22d3b/attachment.html