From: Lifan Wang (lifan@panisse.lbl.gov)
Date: Wed Feb 19 2003 - 15:03:28 PST
Rob,
> There is no "right" way to do this that is utterly pure as the driven
> snow statistically. Treating every supernova in a purely consistent
> manner gives results that are obviously plain wrong, as the attached
One thing I am not clear is the problem with having all the SNe with
floating base line. I expect having an extra parameter only to reduce
the fitting errors, although the best fit may prove to be quite
irrelavent, the fit itself should always be an improvement. So can
you please explain what is exactly bothering you here.
For 92ag, I am surprised and bothered by the fact that your best fit
needs a baseline offset of only 0.03. It seems to me that your other
fit (with fixed baseline) actully did not converge to the real minimum
chi^2. One way to see this is to add 0.03 to your best fit (with floating
zero baseline) which then gives a fit with the baseline fixed to zero.
Visually, I would expect this to be a much better fit than the fit given
in the figure with fixed zero.
Lifan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Feb 19 2003 - 15:03:43 PST