Quote:
Originally Posted by parejkoj
I read the published version. I would expect that the first version is worse (though I'm not really certain how that is possible).
|
Depending on your mood, I think you'll find it (v1) good for laughter or weeping (HINT: it is, IMHO, considerably worse than v2).
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nereid
Your three strikes apply to v2 (apparently), though I think strike 1 is a little more subtle than as you have written it ....
|
I'm curious what you mean in that regard. It seems quite clear to me that Bell did not understand the catalog he used in writing the paper. That makes the entire thing unreliable, at best.
Garbage in -> Garbage out.
|
The take-away from strike 1 remains the same; the subtlety comes from the fact that Bell seems to use 'AGN galaxies' inconsistently (or insufficiently clearly) in the paper - mostly it is clearly intended to include quasars (or does so explicitly), but sometimes he seems to regard them as a separate class of object from quasars (despite writing, on p3 of the arXiv v2 preprint, "the sources listed as quasars and AGN are clearly the same"). This seems to come from his use of VCVcat, which uses both terms. The part you quoted, in full, is as follows [
my annotation is in square brackets]:
Quote:
|
This paper examines the AGN galaxies listed in the VCVcat [i.e. all those listed as 'quasars' plus all those listed as 'AGN'] and draws conclusions based on that sample. It contains the quasars found in the SDSS that were available at the time the catalog was prepared, and approximately 11,000 Seyferts and BLLacs, but whether the current VCVcat contains many AGN galaxies [i.e. those AGN galaxies, per Bell's definition in this paper, not called 'quasars' in SDSS] found in the SDSS galaxy [my bold] survey is unclear.
|