Weeds

So I'm back working on the C4 algorithm.. it's now getting downright icky as I'm finding variables with helpful names such as 'a', 'b', 'c', etc... so tracing these back to the inputs has been taking a lot longer than I originally envisaged. Even better, some of the helpful names like 'newRA' get declared and then lead absolutely nowhere. Duplicate variables abound with varying degrees of latency. I will be trying to make at least two runs of C4 after finishing going through the program fully. I'm going to leave tidying up the code for after these runs. It'd be useful to see what parameters C4 can live without... slim it down then bulk it up. Anyway, the outputs are still an issue so to clarify, I aim to:

1. Produce what I think is the best cluster catalog, in the sense that higher-ranked clusters correspond to more massive halos, with the highest possible rates of completeness and purity. I shaln't be concerned with precise coordinates of cluster centers... I'll use the halo lookup table.
2. The catalogue camparisons will be running a uniform algorithm to assign galaxies to clusters, given a list of cluster positions. However, I believe all of the algorithms we discussed at the OSU meeting tracked individual galaxies, so will have different membership assignment algorithms. This effectively means that we will have two slightly different versions of most cluster catalogs in the comparison project.
   

In addition, assignment of the cluster rank can, be arbitrary. The comparison project will be assigning ranks according to the richnesses obtained with the coordinators' membership-assignment algorithm, but an individual cluster catalog might be more accurately ranked by some other cluster property.