All Tables

Table 1: A brief summary of the VLT data. The first column summarizes the seeing of the final stacked images, the total exposure time is given in the second column. Also given the Magnitude Zero Points (Z.P.). The B and R images were obtained by the FORS team (provided by S. Seitz).
Table 2: Photometric redshifts. Uncertainties take into account the scatter in the best fits with different choices for photometric measurements (aperture size, reference filter...). Note that HST data are not used for photometry.
Table 3: Properties of the fifth images on real data (R.) and predicted from the best lens modeling (IS or NFW). The positions (x,y) are given in arcsec, with respect to the cD centroid. Position angles (PA) are given in degrees and a/b is the axis ratio. The errors are found from the changes when varying some SExtractor parameters. Although both the position angles and the ellipticity of the IS and NFW are compatible with the data, there is a significant difference in positions. The offset $\vert\delta\vec{x}\vert$ between the IS and the real position is only $0.16\hbox {$^{\prime \prime }$ }$ , whereas it is $0.36\hbox {$^{\prime \prime }$ }$ for NFW, which is larger than uncertainties on observations (third column $\vert\delta \vec{x}\vert \sim 0.05\hbox{$^{\prime\prime}$ }$ ).
Table 4: Single halo models. The Einstein radius is the same in the best models for strong lensing : $R_{\rm E} \simeq 50 ~h^{-1}~{\rm kpc}$ . For our two strong lensing models, the total mass inside this radius is $M(r<R_{\rm E}) = (2.8\pm0.1)\times 10^{13}~h^{-1}~{M}_\odot$ . Errors due to uncertainties in arcs redshift are omitted. Also reported previous works results for comparison. Me93 refers to Mellier et al. (1993), Ha97 to Hammer et al. (1997), Mi95 to Miralda-Escudé (1995) EF99 to Ettori & Fabian (1999) and Al02 to Allen et al. (2002). When known, the authors' values are recomputed in our adopted cosmology and with the 1.6 sources redshifts. For both papers, the center of potential location is assumed to match the center of cD or is not reported. Me93 core radii have been scaled in order to take into account the departs between their profile and an exact softened isothermal sphere. As well, Ha97 find a slope $\beta \approx 0.85$ instead we have only considered models with $\beta = 1$ (see Eq. (2)). Al02 uses a NFW profile and only gives the scale radius value but we report on the same line our own measured values for ellipticity and position angle from Chandra X-ray brightness. The third column $r_{\rm c} \backslash r_{\rm s}$ corresponds either to the scale radius either to the core radius. Here, we convert all the position angles in a common definition, which is clockwise from North to East. The original paper do not report angles in the same frame but we made the correction except for Ha97 for which we do not know what is the reference. But in any case, the position angle is so constrained that these authors must have found a similar orientation as the other ones. Our definition is more valuable and self-consistent between Chandra, ROSAT, VLT and HST data. Models labels with a S refer to purely strong lensing modeling whereas a W stands for purely weak lensing fits. The last row (cD+DM) concerns the last family of profiles with a cD and dark matter halo components and which is simultaneously constrained by strong+weak lensing. In the first column, we report the permitted inner slope for generalized NFW profiles (see Sect. 3.4.3).
Table A.1: X and Y coordinates in arcsec for the 26 knots used in the modeling. Coordinates are referred to the cD center and are oriented as in Fig. 1. The first part consists of the tangential arc system. The first 13 are 5 times imaged and the next 6 are triply imaged. The (*) denotes the brightest spot in the arcs and is the only point which are seriously observed in the fifth image. On the other side, the radial arc consists on triply images dots only. A1in (resp. A1out) is the inner (resp. outer) part of the composite radial arc. Both are imaged into the Eastern extremity of A5. In this later case, associations of mid points (x,y)=(8.3, -22.4) are somewhat ambiguous and are given less weight for the modeling. The tangential and radial systems were used simultaneously since we established they are at the same redshift $z_{\rm s,phot}\simeq 1.6$ . The system {A'1-A6} is found at a slightly lower photometric redshift and can only be compared with the modeling at a later stage.