Difference between revisions of "Talk:Weighted Histogram Analysis Method"
(Created page with "I was puzzled by "however, this can be misleading as we are not explicitly stating the density of states as the prefactor, Ω." The prior equations are partitions expressed a...") |
(→Confusing terminology and wording: new section) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | I was puzzled by "however, this can be misleading as we are not explicitly stating the density of states as the prefactor, Ω." The prior equations are partitions expressed as integrals over spatial coordinates, so I'm not sure what is misleading about not have an explicit density of states. The density of states would seem more relevant if we were integrating over energy dE. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Subseequently, it seems as though there are a number of symbols which need to be defined; e.g. B_i, lambda_j,i, q_j. Sorry if the definitions are there and I'm missing them! | ||
| + | |||
| + | -- Mike | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Confusing terminology and wording == | ||
| + | |||
I was puzzled by "however, this can be misleading as we are not explicitly stating the density of states as the prefactor, Ω." The prior equations are partitions expressed as integrals over spatial coordinates, so I'm not sure what is misleading about not have an explicit density of states. The density of states would seem more relevant if we were integrating over energy dE. | I was puzzled by "however, this can be misleading as we are not explicitly stating the density of states as the prefactor, Ω." The prior equations are partitions expressed as integrals over spatial coordinates, so I'm not sure what is misleading about not have an explicit density of states. The density of states would seem more relevant if we were integrating over energy dE. | ||
Revision as of 11:22, 17 July 2013
I was puzzled by "however, this can be misleading as we are not explicitly stating the density of states as the prefactor, Ω." The prior equations are partitions expressed as integrals over spatial coordinates, so I'm not sure what is misleading about not have an explicit density of states. The density of states would seem more relevant if we were integrating over energy dE.
Subseequently, it seems as though there are a number of symbols which need to be defined; e.g. B_i, lambda_j,i, q_j. Sorry if the definitions are there and I'm missing them!
-- Mike
Confusing terminology and wording
I was puzzled by "however, this can be misleading as we are not explicitly stating the density of states as the prefactor, Ω." The prior equations are partitions expressed as integrals over spatial coordinates, so I'm not sure what is misleading about not have an explicit density of states. The density of states would seem more relevant if we were integrating over energy dE.
Subseequently, it seems as though there are a number of symbols which need to be defined; e.g. B_i, lambda_j,i, q_j. Sorry if the definitions are there and I'm missing them!
-- Mike