From: Robert A. Knop Jr. (robert.a.knop@vanderbilt.edu)
Date: Tue May 06 2003 - 11:39:23 PDT
On Mon, May 05, 2003 at 07:31:09PM -0700, Greg Aldering wrote:
> p26 Where you say "Note that although ..." you seem to indicated that 2dFGRS
> distortion maps and WMAP CMB measurements are not independent of each other,
> but they are. It is only if we add in the the 2dFGRS power-spectrum constraints
> that there will be some coupling.
Can I just say "Note that although both measurements include CMB data,
tye are..."? Since both have the CMB in there, they aren't independent
constraints.
> p20 "... the high-redshift supernovae ..." --->
> "... the $z>0.7$ supernovae ..."
I can't figure out what you mean here; I haven't figured out which
high-redshift is only talking about the z>0.7 SNe. Can you point me to
it?
> p28 You say "applying the systematic in the most likely direction"
> by which I assume you mean the major axis? Did you just shift the
> contours, or apply magnitude changes to the SNe and recalculate
> the fits?
Meaning offsetting the supernovae, or whatever other parameter, in the
most natural way and seeing how the cosmology changes. I've rewritten
this to say
applying the systematic effect to the supernova parameters used in
the cosmological fits.
> p33 "Fur" ---> "For"
So much for spell checkers.
> p34 R99 is out of order in references at start of this page
I can't find this.
> It would be a simpler paper we we took out the 0.02 E(B-V) offset. As it
> is someone can say that most of the Knop03 are too blue by counting the
> number of minus signs in Table 3 or Table 7.
This is gone. (Well, down to -0.005).
> The figures of the SN+host should really be made from coadded HST PC images,
> and us a log (or similar) lookup table.
On the "later" list.
> We say very little about our ground-base calibration. You mention the use
> of linear color terms in the body. You mentions the use of Landolt standards
> in the appendix. Maybe in the appendix you should say a little more, highlighting
> the fact that several photometric nights from CTIO go into the calibration.
> Note that we use linear extinction and color terms. Also, you don't ever
> give the zeropoint uncertainty, although I guess it is implied?
It goes down into the correlated errors in the correlation matrix. I
hate to quote it on the zeropoints, because those zeropoints combine HST
and ground-based data which don't have the same zeropoint error.
> The axis numbering on the figures generally are too faint, and us a boring
> (IDL default?) font.
That's probably the figures doen with PGPLOT; the reason they're faint
is probably an artifact of ghostview. Either turn off "anti-alias", or
print it out; it will be dark enough. That's just whatever font PGPLOT
uses.
The figures with confidence regions are using Helvetica as their font,
which is probably also boring, but fully readable.
> If you are interested, it is possible that some of the old P99 SNe now have
> I-band final references, as I took some in Nov at Keck.
Yeah, I should have done that long ago for this paper; oh well. That
goes on the list for "after the paper".
-Rob
-- --Prof. Robert Knop Department of Physics & Astronomy, Vanderbilt University robert.a.knop@vanderbilt.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue May 06 2003 - 11:39:25 PDT