From: Greg Aldering (aldering@panisse.lbl.gov)
Date: Fri May 02 2003 - 00:32:40 PDT
Hi Rob,
Here are more edits. I don't have a hole lot more to type in:
There are many more places where "low and high-redshift" or "low and high
redshift" should be "low- and high-redshift" when they are used as
adjectives (which is most of the time in this paper).
Should we quote our measurement of Ho*to? We did this in P99, and it is
one parameter we constrain very well. Unfortunately this requires more
fitting - maybe best to do this during the refereeing.
I still feel that we should quote P(Lambda > 0) since we say we are
confirming P99. I has discussed with you putting this in the fit table.
Putting it in the text would also be fine. In the abstract we should
at least say we have confirmed the results, even if you don't want to
quote P(Lambda) > 99.99X? there, before we go on to the OM in a flat
universe measurement. (Indeed this is crux of the earlier discussion -
SNe are the only measurement which by themselves provide evidence of
dark energy without theoretical assumptions.)
p15: "... However, these analyses used ..." --->
"... However, the main R98 analysis used ..."
Here I may be changing your intent a little, as I don't recall
whether P99's Fit E was full or Baysian extinction correction. However,
it is important to draw the distinction between whether or not
the Baysian was used for the main analyses. It was in R98 but
used only as an example in P99.
"... propagated ..." ---> "... propogated ..."
"... for the supernovae in this work ..." --->
"... for the new supernovae in this work ..."
"... assumption in the ..." --->
"... assumption concerning the ..."
"... effect arises because ..." --->
"... effect arises in part because ..."
Starting with "... the four sets ..." you refer to H96 and R99, etc.
as "sets", but then you put them all together and make "Subsets". So
some of the "sets" are subsets of the "Subsets"! How about calling
these "samples", from which you make "Subsets". This confusing
nomanclature seems isolated to Section 3 (including the caption to
Fig. 1.
"... are too blue indicate that ..." --->
"... are slightly too blue indicates that ..."
Table 7: Having "This paper" split between lines is a little odd.
p17: "... rejected for being reddened in ..." --->
"... rejected as too reddened in ..."
"... reddening high and redshift ..." --->
"... reddening of high- and low-redshift ..."
"... This figure graphically shows both that except for SN~1998aw at
$z=0.44$ (and to a lesser degree, SN~1998as at $z=0.36$), the
supernovae do not suffer from significant host-galaxy extinction.
Those two supernovae which are reddened are at the low end of the
redshift scale ..." --->
"... This figure demonstrates that most of the supernovae do not
suffer from significant host-galaxy extinction. SN~1998aw at $z=0.44$
clearly suffers extinction, and it is likely that SN~1998as at $z=0.36$
does as well. These two reddened supernovae are at the low end
of the redshift range ..."
"... In should be ..." --->
"... It should be ..."
"... changing the $U$-$B$ color assumed." --->
"... changing the reference $U$-$B$ color."
"inlcuded" ---> "included"
"high-redshfit" ---> "high-redshift"
p18: Table 8: Eric suggests the title
"Cosmological fits assuming a flat, $\Lambda$ universe"
This would change if P(Lambda > 0) is included.
He also asks why chi^2 increases so much for Fit 5, and also
why in Fit 1 we don't get OM = 0.28-0.03, i.e., the P99
result minus the R_R offset. I guess these aren't real issues,
for us, but are they explained in the paper? (Note that he
was editing the Monday draft.)
p19: "... paper Fit 2), ..." --->
"... paper (Fit 2), ..."
delete "(which includes ... selected from P99)" since this has been
said already. (From Eric)
"... extinctions applied using ..." --->
"... extinction corrections applied using ..."
"... this prior (P99), we do not ..." --->
"... this prior (see appendix of P99), we do not ..."
Caption to Fig. 3, you describe (OM,OL) = (0.2,0,8) as the best-fit
flat universe case. This is close, but not our actual fit.
"Two points are ..." --->
"Two conclusions are ..."
"... hence tightents the constraints ... regions." --->
"... hence tightens the constraints ... regions, but at the expense of
biasing the results."
p20: "... color excess prior ..." --->
"... color-excess prior ..."
"... reduces the effect of color errors ..." --->
"... reduces the statistical effect of color errors ..."
p21: "SN~1997ck has been ..." --->
"SN~1997ck from R98 has been ..."
"... which can introduces small ..." --->
"... which can introduce small ..."
Eric suggests: "... traditional Robertson-Walker cosmology ... " be changed
to "... traditional constrained cosmology ... "
p22: "... and for vacuum ..." --->
"... while for vacuum ..."
"... so long as there is a component with $w<\sim-1/2$.$ --->
"... so long as $w<-1/3$.$
"... supernovae provide limits ..." --->
"... supernovae provides limits ..."
Not sure why "HST" is in quotes at this point in paper
"... on the $z\sim0.15$ measurement of the two-point galaxy correlation
function from ..." --->
"... from the redshift distortion parameter and bias factor measurement
of ..."
"vairation" ---> "variation"
fix $w$ to be $-1.15^{+0.17}_{-0.22}$, etc.
"constat" ---> "constant"
"liklihood" ---> "likelihood"
You have lots of places where you say "OM/w" or "stretch/luminosity".
Since these can be confused with division, I suggest "OM,w" and
"stretch-luminosity"
"... consistency, the stretch ... lightcurves in P99." --->
"... consistency, in P99 the stretch ... lightcurves."
p23: Caption to fig 7.
"coumn"
"correctiones" (Spanish?)
p24: Caption to fig 8.
"contorus"
p25: "... colors contributes significantly ..." --->
"... colors contribute significantly ..."
"... of OM of $\sim0.02$ ..." --->
"... of OM by $\sim0.02$ ..."
"... larger by 0.0; we ..." --->
"... larger by 0.04; we ..." <--- is this right? 0.04 is in table
p26: "... and 0.10 in $w$." <--- the table says "0.01" - which is right?
"... this bluer assumption amout $U$-$B$ ..." --->
"... this bluer reference $U$-$B$ ..."
"... CMB/large scale structure mass measurement, ..."
"... CMB and galaxy redshift distortion constraints, ..."
p27: "... the new dataset is ..." --->
"... the new high-redshift dataset is ..."
"... hand, the R99 ..." --->
"... hand, some of the R99 ..."
"... SN flux, and ..." --->
"... SN flux and ..."
"... Monte Carlo described ..." --->
"... Monte Carlo code described ..."
p28: In the GL section there are many cases of roman "et al" rather than
italic "et al."
Also in GL, Ammanullah is misspelled several times.
The reference to Frieman has "J. A." in the reference.
"Gravitation lensing may ..." --->
"Gravitational lensing may ..."
"E.g. for the ..." --->
"For example, for the ..."
"equaly" ---> "equally"
"adpot" ---> "adopt"
"... work as been ..." --->
"... work has been ..."
Ok, time to stop for awhile. Just a few pages to go.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri May 02 2003 - 00:32:40 PDT