From: Greg Aldering (aldering@panisse.lbl.gov)
Date: Sun May 04 2003 - 10:06:20 PDT
>I ended up just adding this text to the $w$ section, and nowhere else:
>
> The 95\% confidence limits on $w$ when our data is combined with WMAP
> and 2dFGRS are \mbox$-1.68<w<-0.85$ for the low-extinction primary
> subset, or \mbox$-1.82<w<-0.75$ for the full extinction-corrected
> primary subset. If we add an additional prior that $w\geq-1$, we
> obtain a 99\% upper confidence upper on $w$ of $w<-0.77$ for the
> low-extinction primary subset, or $w<-0.60$ for the
> extinction-corrected full primary subset.
>
>Is that good enough, if we just leave the normal 1-sigma error bars in
>the abstract and conclusion?
Did you really mean 99% CL?
The Spergel et al limit using CMB, 2dFGRS power spectrum, and HST Key
Project Hubble-constant limits is w < -0.78 at 95% CL. You should add
a sentance to that effect and note that our constraints are as good and
are complimentary in the sense that he do not use the Hubble constant
or LSS constraints. (I think that is a very nice aspect to point out.)
If we then add 2dFGRS, we can quote that separately in this context,
but then us it in the abstract.
Our w range is greater than Tonry et al, but our upper bound on w is
better. We can see whether the reviewer makes us quote that, but for
now leave it out.
Also, I'll wait for Submission 2.
- Greg
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun May 04 2003 - 10:06:20 PDT