Re: Number of low eccentricity distant planets

Crown-Horned Snorkack wrote:

> But my point is that after we remove from our data set the cases which
> we know our detection methods are biased in favour of, what remains
> should be representative.
> 
> Start by removing bodies close in. Is the distribution of those found
> to be far away meaningful?

No, because we do not know the original distribution.  Taking the biased 
data set you've gotten and then removing the data that you _think_ are 
showing up most strongly because of your selection bias doesn't take 
into account all data that _you haven't detected yet_ because of your 
selection bias.  And you have no idea what that distribution is, 
otherwise you wouldn't have the bias problem in the first place.

To put it another way, if you were to properly remove the biased data 
from your data set, it would leave you with no data at all.

-- 
Erik Max Francis && max@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
  San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis
   Chastity the most unnatural of the ***ual perversions.
    -- Aldous Huxley