From: Greg Aldering (aldering@panisse.lbl.gov)
Date: Sun Jul 13 2003 - 09:53:20 PDT
Hi Rob,
Saul and I discussed this phrase yesterday and I agree that Saul's edit
makes the sentance much more clear. Recall that this was added after I did
Monte Carlo tests to demonstrate that even with the larger color errors of
P99 we obtained similar mean extinctions for the low-extinction subsets
*after applying the color cut*. (I was concerned that the larger color
errors would let extincted/reddened SNe sneak in; indeed that happens, but
not too badly.) So, in last clause of this sentance, one is speaking only
of the low-extinction subsample. Indeed, your table 7 shows that for the
full sample the extinction is not the same for all the datasets.
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003, Robert A. Knop Jr. wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 12, 2003 at 03:14:04AM -0700, Saul Perlmutter wrote:
> > 3. The last sentence of first paragraph of Section 3 doesn't make sense as it stands, so
> > add the word "subsamples" after the phrase "...demonstrate that similarly low
> > extinction...." So this would now read: "...and further, demonstrate that similarly
> > low extinction subsamples are obtained for both low- and high-redshift datasets...."
>
> I didn't put this in; I think this comment is based on an earlier
> version. Right now it has "similarly low mean extinctions", which is
> really what we're talking about.
>
> -Rob
>
> --
> --Prof. Robert Knop
> Department of Physics & Astronomy, Vanderbilt University
> robert.a.knop@vanderbilt.edu
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Jul 13 2003 - 09:53:23 PDT