Hi Boud, everyone
Anyway, at this time I see no point of terrible importance to force the idea of the tetrahedron pixelization system so I drop this case. rather it would be interesting to implement other pixelizations systems into the isolat packet.
Do you implementing "existing" pixelisation systems?
Well, i see nothing against it, i just don't see it how it would be useful in practice. Unless someone is going to reanalyse the *raw* data of WMAP or Planck - and i mean the really raw data, before it has been converted to the healpix projection/pixelisation - then *re*formatting an observational map from the healpix system to a new system is only going hide the effects (if any) of the healpix system, it's not going to remove them. (And moreover, it will necessarily introduce some additional numerical error.)
unless of course you want to simulate your own maps to do various stuff - the you can do it in different pixelization systems and see the difference in power spectrum, bispectrum, Minkowski functionals etc.
for example see: astro-ph/0305537 for differences in power spectrum and now I see another related paper which a haven't read yet: astro-ph/0501494
besides I think there are methods for repixelizing from one scheme to another which are more less optimall - free of the effects you mentioned but I don't know the details.
Hmm... However, given that a lot of interest is in the smaller angular scales, the question is how much different pixelisation methods could cause wrong conclusions to be made...
If you're going to use these different systems e.g. on a hypothetical data set, which is projected/pixelised in different ways, then that could potentially be an interesting paper. :)
well, mayebe this isn't a big science :) but it's of basic importance. However Healpix has been choosen as a pixelization system for PLANCK data so probably they know what they are doing.
OK, i'll put your isolat addition higher up in my todo list :)
well it's not urgent, take you time :)
and one more comment about the fortran versus c++.
I don't know why such a situation is but it seems to me that the scientific society have choosen fortran (90) as a basic programming language (eg. healpix, icosahedron, partially glesp pix. systems, WMAP likelihood pipeline stuff, cmbfast -- all fortran ). Maybe the point is that according to my last quick findings fortran is a little bit faster to just faster :) evern if applied various optimalization flags in c++ compiler. But for people who program in c++ (like me) the situation is not comfortable, hence another motivation for writting implementations in c/c++. (eg. cmbEASY was written in c++ AFAIR).
pozdr. Bartek