From: Alex Kim (agkim@lbl.gov)
Date: Mon Apr 28 2003 - 15:49:27 PDT
Rob,
The bias numbers are in the proceeding paragraph, so I don't that this
is too fluffy. Feel free to modify the text as you like, maybe you
would prefer a <~ rather than a <, or restate the numbers or rather
their difference.
Alex
Robert A. Knop Jr. wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 09:37:27AM -0700, Alex Kim wrote:
>
>>>This bias moves almost exactly along the line
>>>$\Omega_M+\Omega_\Lambda=1$, increasing uncertainty along the thin
>>>axis of the error contour, and hence also in the deceleration
>>>parameter. However, the extreme difference in dust properties
>>>considered in the Monte Carlo contributes a shift in the cosmological
>>>parameters that is less than 1 $\sigma$ of our quoted statistical
>>>error bars.
>
>
> Note that <1-stat-sigma is the size of *all* of the statistical errors
> we're quoting... can you give me a number I can stick on this? Only if
> it is "lots" less than the other statistical errors, or something (like
> Malmquist) that is very challenging to estimate a number on, are we
> leaving a number out.
>
> We might finesse this by saying that these are the most extreme cases,
> and thus for more likly cases the uncertainty is likely to be negligible.
>
> -Rob
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Apr 28 2003 - 15:49:45 PDT