-
3
-
-
49349139527
-
-
In Table III of this paper, the value 0.478319910 is given for Mayer‐Montroll graph [formula omitted] by mistake. The correct value is 0.478319910. Since the true value is used in the calculations of Ref. 3, the other results are correct.
-
(1976)
Physica (Utrecht) A
, vol.85
, pp. 607
-
-
Kratky, K.W.1
-
8
-
-
85034688894
-
-
Two types of Monte Carlo trials have been employed. First, the type considered in Ref. 6 (i.e., [formula omitted]) has been used to calculate clusters 2, 4, 16, 20, and 23, the number of trials being [formula omitted] The second type is characterized by [formula omitted] (number of trials: [formula omitted]). By means of the latter, the clusters 2, 4, and 11 can be calculated with the unlabeling factors 15, 30, and 12, respectively. Incidentally, the unlabeling factor of graph 16 in Table II of Ref. 6 is 26, the factor 24 given in Ref. 6 is a misprint.
-
-
-
-
9
-
-
0004173953
-
-
If y can be written as [formula omitted] where [formula omitted] are constants and [formula omitted] are independent random variables, it follows for the standard deviation σ that [formula omitted] see (John Wiley&Sons, New York,) 3rd ed., In our case, y is the virial coefficient [formula omitted] [formula omitted] are the modified star graphs contributing to [formula omitted] Ree and Hoover (Refs. 6 and 7) estimated [formula omitted] by dividing the N Monte Carlo trial configurations into q independent batches, see footnote 11 of Ref. 6. Ree and Hoover mentioned that the result is essentially independent of q for the same N, i.e., that the expected value does not depend on the choice of q. In the present work, [formula omitted] is used to estimate [formula omitted] This corresponds to the case [formula omitted] and may well be compared with the data of Ree and Hoover.
-
(1962)
Introduction to Mathematical Statistics
, pp. 231
-
-
Hoel, G.P.1
-
26
-
-
84951898950
-
-
In Ref. 25, [formula omitted] is called [formula omitted] and [formula omitted] is called [formula omitted] (Virial). The inaccuracy of these values is not given explicitly in Ref. 25, but it can be estimated in the following manner: In Table II of Ref. 25, the PY value for [formula omitted] is 0.5374 (correct value: 0.5377). There is a misprint concerning [formula omitted] (Virial) which is 0.2944 due to their own data instead of 0.2971 given in Table II of Ref. 25. Since the true value according to the present work is 0.2949, it can be concluded that the uncertainty of the successing [formula omitted] is about [formula omitted]
-
-
-
|
