The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Chi -squared Fitting problem
Replies: 5   Last Post: Feb 25, 2005 7:42 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]

Posts: 6
Registered: 12/13/04
Re: Chi -squared Fitting problem
Posted: Feb 24, 2005 9:50 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Your logic in this argument does not make sense to me. For
instance I believe that you do agree that s is calculated
only by performing the chi squared fitting in maple or manually.
Ie in this formula
I(t) = Imax * ( fR((t-tmax)/w) + b
all the variables are known from the template and tables and
z is supplied as the redshift value for each SN. So s is
the unknown that is calculated by the chi fitting. In other
words you cant find out s until you have done the chi
squared fit.
Yet you contradict yourself and say that you dont have to do the
fit to find out what s is when z is either .49 or 0.
Dont you see how that does not make sense?
For instance here I will set you a test.
You claim that you can calculate s just by looking at the formula
. So I will set you a test to derive s for a SN where z=0.49
I know what s is because I have taken it from another paper where
someone else has already calculated it so I can check if your
answer is correct.

Now according to your logic the formula `tells` you
what s will be. So please what does the formula tell you
what s is for that SN where z=0.49?
And then, what is s where z=0 for that SN?
Do you still `hear` the formula telling you the answer
or will you now admit that you have to do the chi
squared fit to derive s where z=.49 and z=0
And if you admit that you have to do the fit then that
is a direct contradiction of your earlier statement that
you can `hear `the answer because the formula is `telling`
you the answer.

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.