From: Alex Conley (conley@astro.utoronto.ca)
Date: Tue Nov 15 2005 - 07:09:20 PST
Hi Chris,
Thanks for the comments. Attached are responses.
The web page has been updated with the changes, etc.
Alex
Comments from Chris Lidman on Nov 14, 2005
------------------------------------------
Page 3, line 9. The extra brakets around the years in the references
to Phillips are not needed.
Yup, thanks.
Page 7, line 16. The sentence that starts "This still ..." is difficult to
understand.
All right, how about:
"Because the boundaries of the linear region are determined
by date relative to maximum and not color, \Bbvzs\ remains less affected
even if the amount of extinction is large enough that $\BmV = 0.6$ does
not lie within the linear region."
What I'm trying to do here is respond to a comment by the referee indicating
that they were concerned that if there was enough reddening I would be
evaluating at a fixed point that was not in the linear region. For example,
if E(B-V) = 1.5 mag, then B-V=0.6 would lie well to the left of the
linear region (in fact, for something this extreme, it wouldn't overlap
with the data at all).
Page 8, line 9. The line goes into the right hand margin.
Yes. This is something for the editor to deal with. Without knowing
the exact formatting, spacing, etc. that will be used, there is no
useful way to fix this.
Page 11. line 9. Perhpas the "Z" should be written in lower case.
In Tonry and Barris it is called the $Z$ band, so I have stuck to
their capitalization.
Page 18. 3rd paragraph. Personally, I do not like the sentence which
starts off with "The supernova cosmology field ..." It is a bit too
self congratulating. Also, the last sentence in this paragraph is not
necessary. Both should be deleted.
Yeah, me neither. I'm echoing the referee back at themselves. The
basic problem seems to be that the referee takes this blindness thing
as a personal assault on their integrity, and I'm trying to figure
out how to assuage that. One of their comments was essentially that
sentence. I'll wait to see if others agree, and if enough of us do
I'll drop it.
The last sentence is verbatim Saul, who asked for it to be included.
Page 19. 2nd point. There's a loose bracket at the end of this sentence.
Thanks.
Page 28. 3rd paragraph. It is difficult for the reader to understand
why SN 1998ax is important in the context of CMAGIC bumps. Perhaps it
should be explained that it is a s > 1.1 SNe. It is mentioned in the same
sentence as SN 1998aw, so I first thought that both were 1.0 < s < 1.1 SNe.
And the reader would be correct, since 98ax doesn't belong in that
sentence at all. I think that was the refuse of some earlier version
of the paper when 98ax was in the previous list. Removed. Wow, good
catch.
Page 31. Can the information in this appendix be presented in tabular format?
I tried that the first time. The problem is one of space. The best
tabular format would be a list of each SN with the cuts it failed. That
takes up 4-5 pages, which is a bit silly for an appendix. I then tried
something more like
cut list of sn
cut list of sn
but that was also quite long because of all the wasted white-space.
I think the problem is that lists aren't really designed to handle
lines with huge numbers of entries that aren't in different columns.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Nov 15 2005 - 07:09:34 PST