& 1 & 1\\
       \mu  & ~~1.41~10^{-7~} & ~~1.41~10^{-7~}  & ~~1.41~10^{-7~} & ~~1.41~10^{-7~} & ~~1.41~10^{-7~} & ~~1.41~10^{-7~}  & ~~1.41~10^{-7~}  \\
       \Lambda  & 1 & 10^{-1} & 10^{-2} & 10^{-3} & 10^{-4} & 10^{-5} & 2~10^{-7}\\
       \hline
       m_{3/2} & ~~1.04~10^{-14} & ~~1.06~10^{-14} & ~~1.08~10^{-14} & ~~1.09~10^{-14} & ~~1.11~10^{-14} & ~~1.13~10^{-14} & ~~1.16~10^{-14}  \\
       \<\phi_0\> &  ~~1.41~10^{-7~}  & ~~1.41~10^{-7~}  & ~~1.41~10^{-7~}  & ~~1.41~10^{-7~} & ~~1.41~10^{-7~} & ~~1.41~10^{-7~} & ~~1.41~10^{-7~}  \\
       \<\Phi_0\> & -4.29~10^{-12}  & -4.36~10^{-12}  &  -4.43~10^{-12} & -4.50~10^{-12}  & -4.57~10^{-12} & -4.64~10^{-12} &  -4.75~10^{-12} \\
       \<\Phi_1\> & -4.78~10^{-14}  & -4.44~10^{-14} & -4.16~10^{-14} & -3.91~10^{-14}  & -3.70~10^{-14}  & -3.51~10^{-14}  &  -3.25~10^{-14}\\
       \hline
       F_{\phi_0}/\mu^2 & -2.64~10^{-7~} & -2.39~10^{-7~}  & -2.17~10^{-7~} & -1.99~10^{-7~}  & -1.83~10^{-7~}  & -1.68~10^{-7~}  & -1.47~10^{-7~}   \\
       F_{\Phi_1}/\mu^2& -5.66~10^{-3~}  & -5.46~10^{-3~}  & -5.27~10^{-3~} &  -5.09~10^{-3~}  & -4.93~10^{-3~}  & -4.77~10^{-3~}  & -4.53~10^{-3~} \\
       \hline
      \end{array}
  $

$$\begin{aligned}
 \<\Phi_0 \>= \frac{ 16\pi^2 W_0 (1+\frac{\Lambda'^2}{2}(N_f'+2))}{h^2(\mbox{log}(4)-1)} +  \mathcal{O} (\mu^4) \label{Eq:AnotherPhi0}\end{aligned}$$

Comparing this with the numerical results, obtained using the full one-loop potential, shows that they disagree at the percent level. For example, it gives $\<\Phi_0\>=-4.25~10^{-12}$, with $N_f=2$, $\mu=\sqrt{2}~10^{-7}$, $\Lambda=1$ and $V_{\mbox{quad.}}$ neglected (i.e. $\Lambda'=0$), to be compared with table \[table:lam dep\]. Since the difference is far greater than the error we expected to be introduced 