From: Greg Aldering (aldering@panisse.lbl.gov)
Date: Sun Jul 13 2003 - 14:18:21 PDT
Hi Rob,
I examined pages 16-30 of the pre-final HST paper, as you requested. I
found more little things than I expected, but I think most of those
have been there all along and we never spotted or corrected. As part of
the process, I looked at Saul's last round of PDF-based comments to see
whether those specific changes worked. Here is the result:
page 16:
"... luminosity distance equation ..." --->
"... luminosity-distance equation ..."
page 17:
"... a dispersion of 300 km s^-1);" --->
"... a dispersion of 300 km s^-1 along the line of sight);"
"... applied, use the ..." --->
"... applied use the ..."
"... uncertainty in magnitude corresponding to 0.04 magnitudes ..." --->
"... uncertainty corresponding to 0.04 magnitudes ..."
page 20:
"... survey where extincted ..." --->
"... survey, where extincted ..."
"... Diagram which effective ..." --->
"... Diagram with effective ..."
page 21:
"Figure 6 is shows ... " --->
"Figure 6 shows ... "
Note that we don't say why we are including Figure 6. How about:
"For the sake of clarity, Figure~6 shows ..."
You might also want to borrow from the Figure 6 caption text I sent, e.g.,
the line about showing the size of the dark-energy effect and the
significance of the supernova data in supporting the case for dark energy
for the lower panel of Figure 6.
"... variance-weighted sum ..." --->
"... variance-weighted average ... "
page 22:
Is the following an old problem that we discussed before?
"... color measurements ... data allows ..." --->
"... color measurements ... data allow ..."
page 23:
"... including the eleven new HST supernovae ..."
Technically the fit doesn't include all 11, rather it includes either
8 or 10. So, I suggest that "eleven" simply be removed from this
sentance.
"By itself, the supernova data set at 99% ..." --->
"By themselves, the supernova data set at 99% ..."
Saul had suggested "... because for this fit w is not ..." rather than
"... because w is not ...". I agree that Saul's suggestion clarifies
the issue.
page 24:
"... calculating a $\chi^2 = $ ... " --->
"... calculating a probability using $\chi^2 = $ ... "
page 24:
"When the probabilities distribution is ..." --->
"When the probability distribution is ..."
page 25:
"... when the supernova data is combined ..." --->
"... when the supernova data are combined ..."
In the Malmquist bias section 5.3, "SN Ia" and "SNe Ia" are used extensively,
whereas in the rest of the paper Rob chose to say "supernova" or "supernovae".
So, there is a bit of a style inconsistancy in this section.
Now, stepping outside my proscribed area, let me make some comments on
Saul's comments:
Abstract:
The last sentance is still awkward and in the newest version has a
*structure* which suggests that the conclusion changes (or would be
expected to change) when extinction is accounted for. At a
minimum, "full" should be "fully", and "with using" should be
"using". Better yet, how about this to replace the last two sentances:
"Our cosmological fits using such [[or "full"]] extinction corrections
confirm that that dark energy is required with P(L>0) > 0.99, a result
consistent with previous and current supernova analyses which rely
upon the identification of a low-extinction subset or prior assumptions
concerning the instrinsic extinction distribution."
page 33:
"... that prefer a non-zero ..." I think this is too weak and invites
a challenge to the existance of the stretch luminosity relation. The
original "require" rather than "prefer" does not seem like an overstatement
given our evidence and that from other groups for the existence of such
a relation. Saul and I discussed this on Friday, and I thought that he
accepted this.
page 35:
bottom of page, there should be a space after "mass density"
page 36:
I agree with Saul that "most basic" is better than "zeroth-order", which
was there before, or "crudest" which is there now.
One other comment I'd like on the record - and which maybe we can do something
with - is that the HST coadded images are now good enough to classify the
host types. This is something we had asked Mark Sullivan to do, but which
he never did. I then tried to make coadded images, but did not have the
correct spatial transformations (which of course Rob has from his SN fits
and the "starter" transformations from Alex Conley). So, I think we should
classify the hosts, provide the classification on the Sullivan/Ellis system,
and then note whether we can see any obvious correlation between the SN
location in the galaxy and the measure E(B-V). I suggest that this is amounts
to one more column in Table 3, and a few lines when we discuss extinction.
Since this will be need to be done eventually, I will start working on it.
Also, in your version of Figure 6, on the Hubble diagram the points seem to
be mush together. In Saul's version then seem better separated. Can you try
fixing this by using smaller symbols. Also, I still think that red for the
symbols standards out better, and that 80% of the people will first see
the figure on-line rather than from a B/W printer.
Finally, the usage of "cull", from www.dictionary.com
1.To pick out from others; select.
2.To gather; collect.
3.To remove rejected members or parts from (a herd, for
example).
n.
Something picked out from others, especially something
rejected because of inferior quality.
So, "cull out" is about somewhat redundant, but perhaps slightly more clear
(although in our paper the context makes it quite clear).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Jul 13 2003 - 14:18:23 PDT