# Write math for new photometry model in jointcal.tex

XMLWordPrintable

## Details

• Type: Story
• Status: Done
• Resolution: Done
• Fix Version/s: None
• Component/s:
• Labels:
• Story Points:
6
• Sprint:
Alert Production F17 - 8, Alert Production F17 - 9
• Team:

## Description

I need to explicitly write down the photometric model that I'm going to implement for DM-9195. It should go in a new section of the jointcal.tex document, which might eventually be converted into a DMTN or actual paper.

## Activity

Hide
John Parejko added a comment -

Need to write the math before I start in on the code.

Show
John Parejko added a comment - Need to write the math before I start in on the code.
Hide
John Parejko added a comment -

Eric Bellm: can you please read through and comment on sections 3.1, 3.2, 3.6, 3.7? You can read other parts of the document if you like, but those are the sections that I have made the most changes to, in comparison with Pierre Astier's original text. In particular, I'd like to know if my mathematics is clear and self-consistent, and if my derivation is relatively clear. You should be able to build it by running pdflatex jointcal.tex twice (to get all references). Let me know if compiling it gives you trouble.

Pierre Astier: I've significantly re-worked the derivations and redefined some of the notation, in order to ensure we weren't overloading any letters. Any comments or suggestions you have about the above sections would be welcome, particularly if I mis-interpreted any of the notation or text.

Show
John Parejko added a comment - Eric Bellm : can you please read through and comment on sections 3.1, 3.2, 3.6, 3.7? You can read other parts of the document if you like, but those are the sections that I have made the most changes to, in comparison with Pierre Astier 's original text. In particular, I'd like to know if my mathematics is clear and self-consistent, and if my derivation is relatively clear. You should be able to build it by running pdflatex jointcal.tex twice (to get all references). Let me know if compiling it gives you trouble. Pierre Astier : I've significantly re-worked the derivations and redefined some of the notation, in order to ensure we weren't overloading any letters. Any comments or suggestions you have about the above sections would be welcome, particularly if I mis-interpreted any of the notation or text.
Hide
Eric Bellm added a comment -

comments on the PR, mostly small wording suggestions.

Show
Eric Bellm added a comment - comments on the PR, mostly small wording suggestions.
Hide
John Parejko added a comment -

I'm particularly wondering what you thought about Figure 1, and the notation used in Section 3.3 (Minimization approach) and 3.4 (Photometry example).

Show
John Parejko added a comment - I've responded to your comments, Eric. I'm particularly wondering what you thought about Figure 1, and the notation used in Section 3.3 (Minimization approach) and 3.4 (Photometry example).
Hide
Eric Bellm added a comment -

My only confusion is what the gamma_k subscript is in Figure 1.

While I won't say the notation used is intuitive, I didn't find it hindered my understanding, and I don't have obvious suggestions for improvement.

Show
Eric Bellm added a comment - My only confusion is what the gamma_k subscript is in Figure 1. While I won't say the notation used is intuitive, I didn't find it hindered my understanding, and I don't have obvious suggestions for improvement.
Hide
John Parejko added a comment -

Thanks. I was torn about that k subscript; I had put it there to show that there were a bunch of different \gamma s, but it may not be necessary. Is it clear enough if I just have \gamma=(1,1) and \gamma=(m,n) at the top of the figure?

Show
John Parejko added a comment - Thanks. I was torn about that k subscript; I had put it there to show that there were a bunch of different \gamma s, but it may not be necessary. Is it clear enough if I just have \gamma=(1,1) and \gamma=(m,n) at the top of the figure?
Hide
Eric Bellm added a comment -

I think so--since you don't use the subscript notation for \gamma elsewhere.

Show
Eric Bellm added a comment - I think so--since you don't use the subscript notation for \gamma elsewhere.
Hide
John Parejko added a comment -

Ok, I've removed it, and I think it's ok without that extra k. Thank you for your review feedback!

I also incorporated some feedback from Pierre Astier: thank you as well!

Merged and done. I've filed DM-11790 to convert this into a DMTN. I'll pull it out of the jointcal repo when I do so.

Show
John Parejko added a comment - Ok, I've removed it, and I think it's ok without that extra k . Thank you for your review feedback! I also incorporated some feedback from Pierre Astier : thank you as well! Merged and done. I've filed DM-11790 to convert this into a DMTN. I'll pull it out of the jointcal repo when I do so.

## People

• Assignee:
John Parejko
Reporter:
John Parejko
Reviewers:
Eric Bellm, Pierre Astier
Watchers:
Dominique Boutigny, Eric Bellm, John Parejko, John Swinbank, Pierre Astier, Simon Krughoff