Re: Reworked strong lens section

From: Henk Hoekstra (hoekstra@uvic.ca)
Date: Thu Jan 26 2006 - 17:44:28 PST

  • Next message: Kyle Dawson: "current draft of abstract"

    Hi Eric,

    The current weak lensing text is actually fine with me. Joe can
    see what he wants to do with my suggestion. But I think providing
    a clear description of the synergy between the strong and weak
    lensing make the case much stronger.

    The only thing we should add to the WL section, when discussing
    the error estimates is that these numbers are corroborated
    by a preliminary weak lensing analysis of the data in hand.
    (it shows we did something with the data and that the numbers are
    not pulled out of a hat).

    I guess that Eric can make those changes.

    Cheers,
    Henk

    On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 05:09:34PM -0800, Eric Linder wrote:
    > Hi Henk and Joe,
    >
    > I've been asked to work with the two of you to strengthen (within a
    > confined space) the weak/strong lensing section and surrounding
    > text. I attach my version of what I think incorporates (with a
    > ruthless hand for space constraints) your emails of this afternoon.
    > Henk should insert what he regards as further crucial points into the
    > weak lensing section, which may have been overly shortened. I've
    > tried to keep Joe's main strong lensing points in.
    >
    > Feel free to edit the .tex, or just send me separate short edits if
    > we're close to convergence.
    >
    > Cheers,
    > Eric
    >
    > 
    > On Jan 26, 2006, at 3:08 PM, Joseph Hennawi wrote:
    >
    > >I agree that the weak lensing should not be compressed, but I think
    > >the strong lensing science is compelling
    >

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jan 26 2006 - 17:45:07 PST