Table 5: Comparison between the observed periods of PG 0122+200 (taken from Vauclair et al. 2001) and the theoretical ( $\ell = 1$ ) periods of the best-fit model ( $\overline {\delta \Pi }= 2.61$ s, $\sigma _{\delta \Pi }= 3.55$ s).
$\Pi_i^{\rm O}$ $\Pi_k^{\rm T}$ k $\delta \Pi_i$ $\delta \Pi_i/ \Pi_i$

[s] [s] [s] $[\%]$

336.67 340.30 14 -3.63 -1.08

- 360.88 15 - -

379.60 381.16 16 -1.56 -0.41

401.00 401.75 17 -0.75 -0.19

- 424.05 18 - -

449.43 442.62 19 6.81 1.51

468.69 463.65 20 5.04 1.08

- 485.45 21 - -

- 506.63 22 - -

- 527.22 23 - -

- 546.99 24 - -

570.00 570.35 25 -0.35 -0.06

- 591.06 26 - -

611.05 611.24 27 -0.19 -0.03

**Table 5:** Comparison between the observed periods of PG 0122+200 (taken from Vauclair et al. 2001) and the theoretical ( $\ell = 1$ ) periods of the best-fit model ( $\overline {\delta \Pi }= 2.61$ s, $\sigma _{\delta \Pi }= 3.55$ s).
$\Pi_i^{\rm O}$	$\Pi_k^{\rm T}$	k	$\delta \Pi_i$	$\delta \Pi_i/ \Pi_i$
[s]	[s]		[s]	$[\%]$
336.67	340.30	14	-3.63	-1.08
-	360.88	15	-	-
379.60	381.16	16	-1.56	-0.41
401.00	401.75	17	-0.75	-0.19
-	424.05	18	-	-
449.43	442.62	19	6.81	1.51
468.69	463.65	20	5.04	1.08
-	485.45	21	-	-
-	506.63	22	-	-
-	527.22	23	-	-
-	546.99	24	-	-
570.00	570.35	25	-0.35	-0.06
-	591.06	26	-	-
611.05	611.24	27	-0.19	-0.03

Source LaTeX | All tables | In the text