czesc Boud.
Listen if you want to move in to 36 I think I would be good idea you talk to Marek Gleba if he has some switch because there is only one inet cable so it won't do for us two.
eemmm, I'm about to finish my own versio of a program that calculates circles on the sky for dodecahedron. :) I was just wandering about the correlator you used. I have 2 remarks:
1) circles of different sizes are represented by different number of pixels. so naturally bigger circles will have bigger S value that the smaller because there is just simply more terms to sum over. like T_i*T_j from 'upper' and 'lower' circle. I'm trying to use the same correlator but normalized to one pixes - i.e. I divide each S value (for each individual circle) by the number of pixels that go into it. What do you think about that ?
2) I'm a bit worried about the fact that you don't use absolue values in the \delta T_i and \delta T_j. Imagine a fluctuations aroud the circle in shape of just a linear function T(dist_along_circle=d) ~ d and indentical in the opposite circle. whaen you correlate this you get zero - that's not much. I know it's not a prove but looks a bit worrying to me,since probably some , any random fluctuations can generate S > 0, while for the perfect match we get S=0. So I indent to use abs(T_i)*abs(T_j) (except from the normalization thing).
at the moment the program don't work yet - still debuging :/
pozdr. Bart
Hi Bartek,
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, Bartosz Lew wrote:
eemmm, I'm about to finish my own versio of a program that calculates circles on the sky for dodecahedron. :) I was just wandering about the correlator you used. I have 2 remarks:
- circles of different sizes are represented by different number of
pixels. so naturally bigger circles will have bigger S value that the smaller because there is just simply more terms to sum over. like T_i*T_j from 'upper' and 'lower' circle. I'm trying to use the same correlator but normalized to one pixes - i.e. I divide each S value (for each individual circle) by the number of pixels that go into it. What do you think about that ?
See eq.(9) astro-ph/0402608. The only difference is the normalisation.
- I'm a bit worried about the fact that you don't use absolue values in
the \delta T_i and \delta T_j. Imagine a fluctuations aroud the circle in shape of just a linear function T(dist_along_circle=d) ~ d and indentical in the opposite circle. whaen you correlate this you get zero - that's not
You don't get zero. \int_0^L d*d dd = L^3/3 - 0 = (L^3)/3 which is bigger than zero.
much. I know it's not a prove but looks a bit worrying to me,since
It's wrong, so IMHO it's not a proof.
probably some , any random fluctuations can generate S > 0, while for the perfect match we get S=0. So I indent to use abs(T_i)*abs(T_j) (except from the normalization thing).
That will increase the false signal. ok, next two emails...
pozdr boud
-
Bartosz Lew -
Boud Roukema