From: Marc Postman (marc.postman@gmail.com)
Date: Thu Jan 25 2007 - 19:24:59 PST
Let me echo Nino's words. The proposal is excellent and does a great
job of demonstrating our success in achieving our original
objectives. I was extremely impressed to see how well we are doing.
I too have only minor comments.
In the summary of the evolution of the morph-dens relation on page 6,
the explanation is slightly incorrect. The elliptical fraction at a
given density does not change. Don't leave out the "at a given
density". This is important because the lack of evolution in the
elliptical fraction - density relation does not imply the overall
number of ellipticals in the universe does not increase. This is
because the volume of the universe occupied by high density regions
increases with decreasing redshift and thus so does the number of
ellipticals. But the gist of the argument - that the bulk of
ellipticals (and some S0s) for at z > 1.3 is still valid.
Fig 3b (weak-lens mass vs optical richness) is impressive. The only
queasiness I have is staring at the high mass (8+ x10^14) point at
ngal=20. Do we understand why that cluster is so off the relation?
The mass error bar suggests the mass uncertainty is not enough to
explain it. The scatter in the Mass-ngal relation seems to jump below
ngal =20. If this is due to the mass estimates becoming less reliable
shouldn't that be reflected in larger errors? I don't suggest we need
to discuss this at any length but if someone could enlighten me that
would be good - and if it can also be done by adding a well crafted
sentence to the caption that would be helpful.
Cheers,
Marc
On Jan 25, 2007, at 5:28 PM, Nino Panagia wrote:
> I must admit that it makes me proud to be part of the team because it
> looks VERY good, and reads VERY well.
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jan 25 2007 - 19:22:26 PST