From: Kyle Dawson (kdawson@lbl.gov)
Date: Fri Jan 26 2007 - 11:23:25 PST
I agree, let's see how a quick linear correction looks. I hadn't
originally intended my ngal estimates to be used for this purpose, so we
should make at least a small correction and see. It's a miracle it
looks as good as it does now...
Marc Postman wrote:
> Well, if we haven't corrected Ngal for the different absolute flux
> limits of the data that is potentially a major bias - for a fixed
> apparent mag limit the limiting absolute magnitude reached at z=0.8
> is 1.5 mag fainter than at z=1.4 - a non-trivial impact on any number
> counting statistic - at least a factor of 2 - 4. I think there was a
> suggestion to attempt a quick linear correction. Seems to me at the
> very least that should be done (if it can be done quickly).
>
> On Jan 26, 2007, at 1:44 PM, prme wrote:
>
>> I think the figure (3b) is important to show that we are getting
>> weak lensing results out of the data, and so needs to be in the
>> proposal.
>> I agree that the caption and text should emphasize that the
>> N_gal metric is preliminary and that we are exploring with more
>> sophisticated metrics for mass.
>>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Marc Postman Email: postman@stsci.edu
> STScI - CMO Phone: +1-410-338-4340
> 3700 San Martin Drive Fax: +1-410-338-4796
> Baltimore, MD 21218 U.S.A. http://www.stsci.edu/~postman
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jan 26 2007 - 11:26:15 PST