From: Greg Aldering (aldering@panisse.lbl.gov)
Date: Mon May 19 2003 - 01:10:58 PDT
Hi Saul,
Some comments on your comments!
p 18: where you insert "Fit E of P99 and Riess"
I believe that was in an earlier draft and I asked Rob to remove it.
The average reader is not going to know Fit E from Fit C, and may
wonder why we did a fit that we think is wrong. I don't think our
example Fit E should be discussed at the same time as Riess et al's
*primary* fit.
p 19: Where you mention the disk scale height, please note that there is
evidence that the white dwarf scale height *might be* higher than
the typical disk scale height - this is not a rock-solid and should
not be presented as such. The reference is:
\bibitem[Majewski \& Siegel(2002)]{majewski02} Majewski, S.~R.~\&
Siegel, M.~H.\ 2002, \apj, 569, 432
p 32: You had a question about the term "full-search samples"
I was trying to find a quick way to get across the idea that we
did not follow all the SNe from the flux-limited searches with HST.
Flux-limited searches will have certain properties that make
Malmquist bias easier to calculate, but once you hand-pick objects
out of such a sample its a different story. Other wording would be fine,
or Rob could explain earlier in the paper that a subset of the discoveries
were followed, and then it wouldn't be needed here. (This is also a point
that perhaps should be made regarding the reddening distribution.)
- Greg
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon May 19 2003 - 01:11:00 PDT