This is the mail archive of the
gsl-discuss@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GSL project.
Re: GSL_Wigner_6J error
- From: Peter Roche <P dot J dot P dot Roche at damtp dot cam dot ac dot uk>
- To: iwamae at kues dot kyoto-u dot ac dot jp
- Cc: gsl-discuss at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 18:07:02 +0000 (GMT)
- Subject: Re: GSL_Wigner_6J error
Cheers, that solved the problem.
Peter
*********************************************************
Peter Roche
Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics,
University of Cambridge, Silver Street, Cambridge, CB3 9EW
email: p.j.p.roche@damtp.cam.ac.uk
*********************************************************
On Thu, 14 Nov 2002, iwamae atsushi wrote:
> Dear Peter
>
> One of my friend have found the same problem on the 6j symbol in GSL.
> In order to get the correct value, the order of J value should be written
> as
> follows,
>
> gsl_sf_coupling_6j(Ja, Jb, Jc, Jd, Je, Jf)
>
> { Ja, Jb, Je }
> Jd, Jc, Jf
>
> The manual discription is not consistent.
> It says
> {Ja, Jb, Jc}
> Jd, Je, Jf
> , but this order gives wrong value as you noticed
>
>
>
>
> Atsushi Iwamae
>
>
> >From: Peter Roche <P.J.P.Roche@damtp.cam.ac.uk>
> >To: gsl-discuss@sources.redhat.com
> >Subject: GSL_Wigner_6J error
> >Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 19:36:40 +0000 (GMT)
> >
> >
> >Dear All,
> >
> >I hope this isn't a repeat of an already dealt with problem. I have been
> >trying to use the GSL Wigner 6j coefficients routines
> >(gsl_sf_coupling_6j(2*ja, 2*jb, 2*jc, 2*jd,2*je,2*jf)) and have found,
> >I think, that some of the returned values from the GSL
> >routine are not correct, even for small input values.
> >
> >I have included a table showing, in the first column, the input
> >parameter values, the angular mometa (which are multiplied by 2 in my
> >actual program), the second column shows the 'correct' values, obtained
> >from another program/published tables, and the third column shows the
> >return values from the GSL routine.
> >
> > Input Correct values GSL return
> > (011100) 0.5773502691896257 0.0000000000000000
> > (101101) 0.3333333333333335 0.0000000000000000
> > (121101) 0.3333333333333334 0.0000000000000000
> > (101101) 0.3333333333333335 0.0000000000000000
> > (022200) 0.4472135954999579 0.0000000000000000
> > (132201) 0.2581988897471612 0.0000000000000000
> > (242202) 0.2000000000000000 0.0000000000000000
> > (213302) 0.1690308509457034 0.0000000000000000
> > (233302) 0.1690308509457033 0.0000000000000000
> > (253302) 0.1690308509457033 0.0000000000000000
> >
> >
> >Has anyone encountered the same problems, or can explain the differences.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >Peter Roche
> >
> >*********************************************************
> >
> >Peter Roche
> >Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics,
> >University of Cambridge, Silver Street, Cambridge, CB3 9EW
> >
> >email: p.j.p.roche@damtp.cam.ac.uk
> >
> >*********************************************************
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> $B%&%$%k%9%a!<%k!"LBOG%a!<%kBP:v$J$i(B MSN Hotmail http://www.hotmail.com/
>
>