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

[Barry Wardell]

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 7:28 PM, Barry Wardell <barry.wardell at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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?
>

Dana has said she will be able to make sure the code works for the phi
conformal method, but she will be travelling for the next week so will not
be able to do it until after then.

Barry
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.einsteintoolkit.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20120518/905e9c4f/attachment.html