Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 08:39:09 -0600
From: Robert Bernstein <rhbob@fnal.gov>
Subject: Re: Response to Bob's comment on section 4
To: Heidi Schellman <schellman@fnal.gov>
Cc: sgeer@fnal.gov
Reply-to: rhbob@fnal.gov
Message-id: <38E2158D.15E9CC99@fnal.gov>
Organization: Fermilab
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
References: <38E16EF0.90FE541C@fnal.gov>


Heidi Schellman wrote:
> 
> Page 77. Very - gone , 10^5 stays as we actually have more like 10^5 for things
> like nubar and NC. Could - OK, nixed totally

If you had said 5x10^5 I wouldn't argue but 10^5 really is too small.
Can we compromise and say typically 5x10^5 events in final samples? 
> 
> 78  er - yea, I fixed in response to a comment by Jorge, then busted again.
> 
> Now says 18M events/year in a 10 kg hydrogen target, 5-10 times NuTeV.
> 
> THe 1000 is still true, one could in fact do NuTeV and get several gazillion
> events.

Then what you're trying to say isn't clear.  How about "We have
concentrated on new measurements made possible by the 10^{4--5} times
higher flux at the neutrino factory."  
> 
> Page 79, fixed em all
> 
> Page 80, fixed em al
> 
> Page 81, in leading order, maybe I should say zero-order?  After all F3 is not q
> -qbar even
> in DIS 
 This is a discussion about what leading order means.  I think either
would be OK, I just wanted the distinction made.

> 
> Page 82  For example, in the case of...
> 
> Page 83 well-understood - took it out but once you've done QCD at a collider,
> inclusive
> lepton scattering starts looking pretty easy to comprehend.

Scattering garbage cans off garbage cans {\it is} a complicated process,
I agree!
> 
> flux uncertainties - I dunno, I bet will be much better but will dominate in the
> end.
Well, I was thinking knowing the nubar flux taken one year compared to
the nubar flux taken another would be a significant error.  I would
point that out.  Too bad we can't use IMD in both modes.
> 
> Page 84 et al.  - I knew that!
I know but it appears throughout the document.  You got blasted
by chance.
> 
> Page 85 ok
> 
> Page 86 I agree on killing all superlatives.
> 
> Page 87-88, fixed
> 
> Page 89 ok, ok, ok and Kevin
Somehow I'm not surprised.
> 
> Page 92 I'm thinking of a flux/cross sections section
Terrific, I think that would be a big improvement.
> 
> Page 93 muebar is a global fix I can apply in hep_macro
> 
> Page 94 lemme just leave sin2theta
OK.
> 
> Page 95 ok
> 
> Page 96 - cant read it.
Wanted equivalent M_W, but never mind.
> 
> Rest ok, ok ok.

         --Thanks! --Bob