From: Chris Lidman (clidman@eso.org)
Date: Mon Jan 26 2004 - 00:56:55 PST
Dear All,
Some of you spotted an error in my e-mail yesterday. Today, we
should be discussing Gaston's paper and not Gabriele's. My apologies
to Gaston. I'm still a bit jet-lagged.
Cheers, Chris.
On Sun, 2004-01-25 at 12:23, Chris Lidman wrote:
> Dear All,
> Here is a brief agenda to help start Monday's discussion on Gabriel's
> EW paper. It is not meant to be a complete summary of all the points
> that have been raised, but it lists the major ones.
>
> Cheers, Chris.
>
> Meeting Agenda 26/01/04
> -----------------------
>
> Systematic errors - Section 3.3
> ================================
>
> In reference to the first paragraph, is the method used to estimate
> the systematic error valid?
>
> 1-sigma errors in Table 5
> =========================
>
> The way the 1-sigma errors are reported is this and other related tables
> is confusing.
>
> More plots - Section 5
> ======================
>
> Adding one or more plots showing the correlations between EW
> and peak magnitude and adding a paragraph or table which describes how
> the dispersion in the corrected peak magnitude is reduced after the
> correlation is taken into account.
>
> Adding a plot of EW(2+3) versus epoch for a representative
> number of supernovae
>
> Systematic errors due to host contamination
> ===========================================
>
> This section is not clear and needs to be discussed.
>
> A New section - section 5.2
> ===========================
>
> Move all comments on the applicability of these correlations on
> high z SN spectra into its own section.
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jan 26 2004 - 09:30:51 PST