From: Robert A. Knop Jr. (robert.a.knop@vanderbilt.edu)
Date: Wed May 07 2003 - 09:06:29 PDT
On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 09:05:08AM -0700, Saul Perlmutter wrote:
> I'm still inclined to leave it in, as it is now. The reason is that it
> shows that we are not ignoring the other team's hard work, by making a
> reasonable effort to include their work as of the time when this *very*
> large paper was put together and developed by the colllaboration. It is
> not unreasonable that we haven't started a whole new process for this paper
> of trying to study the details of the Tonry paper to see how *some* of its
> supernovae could be added it to this one -- we will do that in the next
> paper.
Ok -- we can leave it in, I just fear it looks strange that the
confidence regions are no different. (Somebody-- I forget who, perhaps
Tony?) made that comment to me at one point.)
I don't think there's a danger of anybody saying we're ignoring their
work; we talk about it a lot, and we even go through the effort of
making fun of their e(b-v) prior.
-Rob
-- --Prof. Robert Knop Department of Physics & Astronomy, Vanderbilt University robert.a.knop@vanderbilt.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed May 07 2003 - 09:06:32 PDT