| Issue |
A&A
Volume 574, February 2015
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Article Number | C1 | |
| Number of page(s) | 2 | |
| Section | Cosmology (including clusters of galaxies) | |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201322450e | |
| Published online | 16 January 2015 | |
Mass, velocity anisotropy, and pseudo phase-space density profiles of Abell 2142 (Corrigendum)
1
Astronomy Unit, Department of Physics University of Trieste,
via Tiepolo 11,
34131
Trieste,
Italy
e-mail:
munari@oats.inaf.it
2
INAF/Osservatorio Astronomico di Trieste, via Tiepolo
11, 34131
Trieste,
Italy
e-mail:
biviano@oats.inaf.it
3
Institut d’Astrophysique de Paris (UMR 7095: CNRS &
UPMC), 98bis Bd
Arago, 75014
Paris,
France
e-mail:
gam@iap.fr
Key words: methods: observational / galaxies: clusters: general / galaxies: kinematics and dynamics / galaxies: general / errata, addenda
The pseudo phase-space density profile of Abell 2142, defined with the galaxy number density profile ν instead of the cluster mass density profile ρ, was shown in Fig. 12 of Munari et al. (2014). This graph was erroneous (because we had incorrectly considered the projected number density profile instead of the 3D profile). The correct figure is shown below. The values in Table 4 are changed, and the correct ones are reported in the table below.
 |
Fig. 12 Same as Fig. 10 of Munari et al. (2014), but now using the radial profiles of galaxy number density instead of total mass density to estimate the PPSD. |
Best-fit parameters of the PPSD profile.
While Fig. 12 of Munari et al. (2014) indicated that the PPSDs computed with the number density profile are significantly shallower than the theoretical relation of Dehnen & McLaughlin (2005), the corrected version of the figure shown here indicates that the PPSDs computed with the number density profile are now either consistent with the relation of Dehnen & McLaughlin (Q(r) for BLUE sample) or only slightly shallower, but not less consistent with that relation than found for the PPSDs computed with the mass density profile.
Therefore, the statement in Munari et al. (2014) that the mass density profile represents the PPSD and β − γ relations better is no longer correct. Indeed, Figs. 11 and 13 of Munari et al. show that the β − γ relations obtained using the mass density or tracer number density are indistinguishable for the RED and ALL samples. And therefore, the entire discussion of the greater relevance of the mass density profile relative to the galaxy number density profile must be dismissed.
References
- Dehnen, W., & McLaughlin, D. E. 2005, MNRAS, 363, 1057 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [MathSciNet] [Google Scholar]
- Munari, E., Biviano, A., & Mamon, G. A. 2014, A&A, 566, A68 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
© ESO, 2015
All Tables
All Figures
|
Fig. 12 Same as Fig. 10 of Munari et al. (2014), but now using the radial profiles of galaxy number density instead of total mass density to estimate the PPSD. |
| In the text | |
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.