Jensen's paper

Alright, for anyone following along here is the info:

tinyurl.com/3dgb8

As expected, this is all considerablly over my head

Thanks again, Tom.

mhelland@techmocracy.net

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by mhelland</i>
<br />As expected, this is all considerablly over my head <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Actually, the situation is simpler than I had assumed. Here's the short story (and many thanks for the link).

In my general explanation of Malmquist bias in this thread dated 21 May, I wrote as follows:
"All is well when we can observe a representative sampling of all supernovas. However, in the real universe, we have two factors that can distort the statistics. One is that the volume of space sampled goes up with the cube of distance. The other is that apparent brightness goes down with at least the square of distance."

According to the Teerikorpi et al. paper, the first of these two distortions with distance, the ever-increasing-volume effect, is Malmquist Type I bias; and the second distortion, the cut-off of the sampling curve at some brightness, is Malmquist Type II bias. -|Tom|-