> So, yeah, you're correct. My suggestion was based on the not > so careful mistake of replacing x*x by x+x and dropping log(2). > That is, I had x+x = -emax --> x = - emax / 2.
Committed as rev. 205151, thanks for the review! FX
> So, yeah, you're correct. My suggestion was based on the not > so careful mistake of replacing x*x by x+x and dropping log(2). > That is, I had x+x = -emax --> x = - emax / 2.
Committed as rev. 205151, thanks for the review! FX