final set of minor comments

From: Alex Conley (aconley@panisse.lbl.gov)
Date: Tue Feb 25 2003 - 10:12:30 PST

  • Next message: Robert A. Knop Jr.: "On re-doing analysis"

    Page and column info refers to 2003-Feb-13 version

    General :

    (B-V)max vs. Bmax-Vmax : Greg had a question about using Bmax-Vmax vs.
     (B-V)max. I can't find anyplace in the paper where it is explicitly
     stated what you mean when you say U-B or R-I -- are they at B maximum or
     each at their own maximum? Note that the output that you get from
     snmin is (B-V)max, not Bmax-Vmax.

    WMAP : Yes, as everybody is saying, you need to discuss their results.
     But I should warn you that this may not be as easy as you would like,
     since their papers concentrate on WMAP data combined with other data.
     The best you will probably be able to do is (Spergel et al., section
     6.2):
     "If we include a weak prior on the Hubble Constant, H_0 > 50 km/sec
     [Alex: Alan Sandage watch out!], then this is sufficient to constrain
     0.98 < \Omega_{tot} < 1.08 (95% confidence interval). Combining the
     WMAPext data with supernova measurements of the angular diameter distance
     relationship we obtain 0.98 < \Omega_{tot} < 1.06. This confidence
     interval does not require a prior on h. If we further include the HST Key
     Project measurement of H_{0} as a prior, then the limits on \Omega_{tot}
     improve slightly: \Omega_{tot} < 1.02 +- 0.02 [Alex: I wonder if that is
     supposed to be a =, not a < ?]." So their best results include SNe data,
     and are actually not as wonderful as generally proclaimed when it comes
     to \Omega_{tot}.

    WFPC2 not WFPC-2 : It's WFPC2 in all STScI documentation, not WFPC-2

    Specific :

    p 17 col 1 : duplicate then
    Original: For the 11 HST supernovae in this paper, if 1998ba is omitted,
    then then mean E(B-V) of the set...
    Problem: Two thens.

    p 18 col 1: Error bars
    Original: In Figure 4, error bars have been expanded by R_{B} x E(B-V),
    where...
    Problem: (i) Did you mean to expand by R_B*E(B-V) or by R_B * your assumed
     error in E(B-V)? Assigning an error of the same size as the correction
     seems like overkill. Or maybe you mean to say that the magnitudes have
     been corrected by R_B*E(B-V)?
    (ii) There should be a the between Figure 4 and error bars and not
      comma -- i.e. In Figure 4 the error bars have been expanded... In fact,
      you might want to mention 'added in quadrature' instead of expanded.

    p 20 col 2: Assumed alpha
    Observation: You assume an alpha of 1.74, but it is one of your nuisance
    parameters. Therefore you need to stat after the fact what value of
    alpha your fit produces to show that it is consistent with the value
    you used when inputting things.

    p 21 col 1 : correct not correction
    Original : .. for fits which do not explicitly correction for host galaxy
    extinction, ...
    Suggested replacement : ... for fits which do not explicitly correct for
    host galaxy extinction, ...

    p 21 col 1 : include not includes
    Original: The solid confidence ellipses in the left panel includes the
    low-redshift supernovae plus ...
    Suggested replacement: The solid confidence ellipses in the left panel
    include the low-redshift supernovae plus ...

    p 21 col 1: missing and
    Original: For comparison, the confidence intervals using all of the
    low-redshift SNe, just the high redshift SNe...
    Suggested replacement: For comparision, the confidence intervals using all
    of the low-redshift SNe and just the high redshift SNe ...
    Also : The ( ) comment following this sentence needs to be before the
    period ending the sentence. Or, better yet, just drop the parenthesis and
    make it a stand-alone sentence.

    Alex



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Feb 25 2003 - 10:12:31 PST