From: Greg Aldering (aldering@panisse.lbl.gov)
Date: Tue May 06 2003 - 12:56:27 PDT
Sorry in advance if this is a little rushed; I have inserted my
comments, below. One quick question though - I found that the change in
the aperture correction in going from a diameter of 0.5 arcsec to 1.0
arcsec in only about 0.04 mag. How do you get 0.07 mag? See
http://icarus.stsci.edu/~stefano/newcal97/pdf/suchkov2.pdf as an
example.
- Greg
>From robert.a.knop@vanderbilt.edu Tue May 6 11:39:24 2003
>
>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.
The 2dFGRS results do not include CMB data. What makes you believe that they
do? (It is true that one of the analysis in the Spergel paper includes 2dFGRS,
but we are not using that particular analysis.)
It may be that a caveat is necessary for the reasons that Eric explained, but
this is unrelated to the CMB. I will read what Eric wrote and try to suggest
something.
>
>
>> 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?
>
In Submission Candidate #2, this is located on the very first line of
the second column. You continue by saying "... much more than the ..."
You are discussing the instrinsic uncertainty in U-B, and which SNe
it affects, and I suggest that you be more explicit about the
redshifts at which changes in U-B become important.
>
>> 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.
So by "supernova parameters" you mean peak magnitudes and/or values of
E(B-V)? Are there any other parameters involved? If not, and since the
list is short, I suggest simply listing what SN measurements where adjusted
in which cases (i.e. magnitudes, and then for extincion corrected fits,
E(B-V) as well.)
>> p33 "Fur" ---> "For"
>
>So much for spell checkers.
Fur is spelled correctly!
>> p34 R99 is out of order in references at start of this page
>
>I can't find this.
At the top left of page 34 you will see a sentance that says "... correlate
with host-galaxy environments ..." followed by a number of references. In
that list of references, R99 is out of order, coming after Hamuy 2000,
Ivanov 2000, Howell 2001, and Wang 2003.
>> 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.
This comment was based on a printed version, where all the other type
was fine, but the figure numbering was faint.
>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
--h46JtJ903790.1052250919/europa.lbl.gov--
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue May 06 2003 - 12:56:28 PDT