From: Alex Conley (aconley@panisse.lbl.gov)
Date: Tue May 20 2003 - 10:19:50 PDT
On Mon, 19 May 2003, Gerson Goldhaber wrote:
> the 2 with s_diff >0.1 have already been flaged by Alex C.
I should note for the record that I flagged them for different reasons. At
no point did I go through and compare stretches between the old and new
fits. I flagged the three that I did (921,94102,9795), alternatively
known as 92bi,94al,97aj, were flagged because the fits were poorly behaved
(see http://panisse.lbl.gov/collab/archive/hstpaper/0115.html). Thus, we
have a MUCH better reason for ditching them than just noting that the
stretches changed between Gerson's paper and this one.
Alex
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue May 20 2003 - 10:19:51 PDT