From: Robert A. Knop Jr. (robert.a.knop@vanderbilt.edu)
Date: Sun May 04 2003 - 10:12:16 PDT
On Sun, May 04, 2003 at 10:06:20AM -0700, Greg Aldering wrote:
>
> >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.
Note that the one I'm quoting right now *does* use the 2dFGRS galaxy
distortion whatsit.
I will change my 99% to 95%. (That really was 99%.) Then I will spit
sub cand 2 at you.
-Rob
-- --Prof. Robert Knop Department of Physics & Astronomy, Vanderbilt University robert.a.knop@vanderbilt.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun May 04 2003 - 10:12:18 PDT