Wigner 3j returns 0s instead of actual output

[joeydumont]

Thanks again to @jeffzhen for pointing this out.

In the computation of the Wigner symbol WignerSymbols::wigner3j(529, 992, 1243, 196, -901, 705), the function returns 0 (and the vector function for all allowed l1s returns a string of 0s) while the actual output is close to 1.97986e-18.

This is due to an overflow of the normalization condition. Will need to be fixed.

[joeydumont]

@jeffzhen, could you please retest the new version of the library?

[jeffzhen]

OK, testing now.

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 8:14 PM, Joey Dumont [email protected]
wrote:

@jeffzhen https://github.com/jeffzhen, could you please retest the new
version of the library?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#2 (comment)
.

[jeffzhen]

Hi Joey,
Wow, great and fast work! I can confirm that bug #2 was fixed! Your code is
probably one of the most capable wigner symbol calculator in the world now
;) Sorry to report bugs non-stop, but here are the last 6 combinations (in
my 1000 test cases) that are returning 0:
[ 751 856 1200 464 -828 364] -9.41731061215e-58 -0.0
[ 841 379 1011 -631 313 318] -2.44096504011e-41 -0.0
[ 570 1007 1392 327 -933 606] -1.74376347733e-98 0.0
[ 970 727 1202 533 -663 130] -6.93009562166e-12 0.0
[ 905 919 1670 869 -594 -275] -3.48516309858e-195 -0.0
[ 895 574 1392 793 -365 -428] -1.41868655509e-146 -0.0

Thanks a lot!
Jeff

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 9:09 PM, Jeff Zheng [email protected] wrote:

OK, testing now.

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 8:14 PM, Joey Dumont [email protected]
wrote:

@jeffzhen https://github.com/jeffzhen, could you please retest the new
version of the library?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#2 (comment)
.

[joeydumont]

Does your first column after the symbol definition correspond to the "good" outputs?

[jeffzhen]

Hi Joey,
Yes, thise are Mathematica outputs.

Thanks a lot!
Jeff

Sent from my mobile device
On Jul 21, 2014 12:46 PM, "Joey Dumont" [email protected] wrote:

Does your first column after the symbol definition correspond to the
"good" outputs?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#2 (comment)
.

[joeydumont]

The problem described in this issue has been solved. See #3 for the rest of your test cases.