From: Greg Aldering (aldering@panisse.lbl.gov)
Date: Fri May 23 2003 - 10:00:03 PDT
On Fri, 23 May 2003, Robert A. Knop Jr. wrote:
> On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 09:33:17AM -0700, Greg Aldering wrote:
> > Yes, I used everything in your "Gerson table" of May 18th (the last
> > one you circulated). Note that I only use the error bars on the color
> > and the magnitude as being representative for purposes of the Monte
> > Carlo simulation. Do you see a problem with that approach?
>
> No -- except that I should note that the E(B-V) error bars are not the
> same as the (R-I) error bars, and the 0.0425 intrinsic U-B dispersion is
> not included in the E(B-V) error bars in the table. (It is included in
> dcc, though.)
>
Yes, I treated E(B-V) and R-I errors separately.
I didn't include the U-B intrinsic scatter. This would be tricky for my
current simulation because the SNe which require U-B are all at high
redshift where extincted SNe are supressed in our sample. As I don't
simulate the SN redshift distribution, my simulation can't account for
this correlation properly.
Note that the lack of redshift simulation could have other effects in my
simulation in the sense that our error bars may be systematically smaller
at low redshift than at high redshift. If so, the noisier high-redshift
error bars might be letting in extincted SNe which are in fact never
allowed into our sample due to the flux limit.
To investigate further, we would have to couple our selection criteria to
a more complete extinction/flux-limit simulation, like those that Gene has
done. This should be possible, but could take a little time.
- Greg
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri May 23 2003 - 10:00:23 PDT