This is the mail archive of the
gsl-discuss@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GSL project.
Re: GSL_Wigner_6J error
- From: Gerard Jungman <jungman at lanl dot gov>
- To: Peter Roche <P dot J dot P dot Roche at damtp dot cam dot ac dot uk>
- Cc: iwamae at kues dot kyoto-u dot ac dot jp, gsl-discuss at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: 20 Nov 2002 12:43:14 -0700
- Subject: Re: GSL_Wigner_6J error
- Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0211181805480.3563-100000@hoover.amtp.cam.ac.uk>
Hi all. Sorry for the confusion here. I implemented this code,
but I never looked closely at it. Is there a consensus about
how it should work? It is definitely true that, as implemented,
the function returns
/ Ja Jb Je \
\ Jd Jc Jf /
I'm not sure where this convention comes from, if anywhere.
Should I change the interface or just change the documentation?
Thanks.
--
G. Jungman
On Mon, 2002-11-18 at 11:07, Peter Roche wrote:
> 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/
> >
> >
--
Gerard Jungman <jungman@lanl.gov>
Los Alamos National Laboratory