text:
# OVRO CMB Anisotropy Measurement Constraints on Flat-Λ and Open CDM Cosmogonies

## 1 Introduction

Cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropy measurements have begun to provide interesting constraints on cosmological parameters.111 See, e.g., Miller et al. (2002a), Coble et al. (2001), Scott et al. (2002), and Mason et al. (2002) for recent measurements, and, e.g., Podariu et al. (2001), Wang, Tegmark, & Zaldarriaga (2002), Durrer, Novosyadlyj, & Apunevych (2001), and Miller et al. (2002b) for recent discussions of constraints on cosmological parameters. Ganga et al. (1997a, hereafter GRGS) developed a technique to account for uncertainties, such as those in the beamwidth and the calibration, in likelihood analyses of CMB anisotropy data. This technique has been used with theoretically-predicted CMB anisotropy spectra in analyses of the Gundersen et al. (1995) UCSB South Pole 1994 data, the Church et al. (1997) SuZIE data, the Lim et al. (1996) MAX 4+5 data, the Tucker et al. (1993) White Dish data, the de Bernardis et al. (1994) ARGO data, and the Platt et al. (1997) Python I-III data (GRGS; Ganga et al. 1997b, 1998; Ratra et al. 1998, 1999a, hereafter R99a; Rocha et al. 1999, hereafter R99). A combined analysis of all these data sets, excluding the Python data, is presented in Ratra et al. (1999b, hereafter R99b).

In this paper we present a similar analysis of CMB anisotropy data from the OVRO observations (Leitch et al. 2000, hereafter L00). The OVRO detectors and telescopes are described in Leitch (1998) and L00; here we review information about the experiment that is needed for our analysis.

OVRO data were taken in two frequency bands, one centered at 14.5 GHz (Ku band), the other at 31.7 GHz (Ka band). Thirty-six fields, along an approximate circle at declination $`\delta 88^{}`$ centered on the North Celestial Pole (NCP) were observed. In our computations we use the coordinates for the 36 fields given in Table 2 of L00. The OVRO measurements were made by switching the beam in a two-point pattern along the circle, resulting in a three-beam response to the sky signal. The beamthrow is $`22^{}.16`$. The zero-lag window function parameters for the OVRO experiment are given in Table 1. This and other window functions are shown in Fig. 18 of L00.

L00 use multiepoch VLA observations to detect and remove non-CMB discrete source contamination from the OVRO data. We have also analyzed the OVRO data ignoring 3 of the 36 fields that were affected by the strongest variable discrete source; cosmological constraints derived from this restricted OVRO CMB anisotropy data set are very consistent with those derived from the full OVRO CMB anisotropy data set, so we do not discuss this restricted OVRO data set analysis further.

Since OVRO data were taken at two frequencies, it is possible to fit the data to both a non-CMB foreground component (parametrized by the frequency dependent temperature anisotropy $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_{\mathrm{fore}}\nu ^\beta `$) and a CMB anisotropy component with spectral index $`\beta =0`$.222 See L00 and Mukherjee et al. (2002) for discussions of foreground contaminants in the OVRO microwave data. We use the method in $`\mathrm{\S }`$ 11 of L00 to extract the CMB anisotropy component in the OVRO data, marginalizing over a foreground spectral index in the range $`3<\beta <2`$ in our likelihood analysis.333 Although the data themselves are unable to rule out more negative values of beta (L00, Fig. 14), Leitch et al. (1997) use low frequency maps of the NCP region to rule out such values.,444 Following Mukherjee et al. (2002) we have also analyzed the 31.7 GHz OVRO CMB anisotropy data while marginalizing over possible 100 $`\mu `$m and 12 $`\mu `$m foreground contaminant template (Schlegel, Finkbeiner, & Davis 1998) correlated components. The cosmological constraints from these analyzes are quite consistent with results presented here. This is because although the foreground signal inferred in our analysis is not entirely fit by the dust data, they are significantly correlated, and the 31.7 GHz data, modelled either way, is almost entirely CMB anisotropy. The OVRO data at its two frequencies are shown in Fig. 13 of L00, the deduced CMB anisotropy and foreground signals are shown in Fig. 16 of L00, and the dust-correlated emission is shown in Fig. 1 of Mukherjee et al. (2002).

CMB anisotropy constraints are derived from the foreground-corrected 31.7 GHz data.555 At $`\beta =2.2`$ for the foreground contaminant, $`96\%`$ of the 31.7 GHz data is CMB anisotropy. The 31.7 GHz beam profile is well approximated by a circular Gaussian of FWHM $`7^{}.37\pm 0^{}.26`$ (one standard deviation uncertainty). We use the method of GRGS to account for the OVRO beam uncertainty.

As discussed in L00, the noise in the 31.7 GHz data indicates the presence of a component that is correlated between neighboring fields (this component is small compared to the uncorrelated noise in a single scan of data). As a result the 31.7 GHz OVRO data show only one-half of the anticorrelation for nearest neighbor fields expected for a triple beam chopped experiment.666 Models that neglect these correlations are grossly discrepant with the data, while when these correlations are accounted for the model fits are reasonable and consistent with the data. This can be seen from Fig. 19 of L00 and we find the same. This one-offdiagonal correlated noise is included and its amplitude marginalized over in our analysis.

A constant offset is removed from the OVRO data; we marginalize over the amplitude of the offset to account for this in our likelihood analysis. The 1 $`\sigma `$ absolute calibration uncertainty of the OVRO data is $`4.3\%`$, and the method developed by GRGS is used to account for it.

In $`\mathrm{\S }`$ 2 we summarize the computational techniques used in our analysis. See GRGS and R99a for detailed discussions. Results are presented and discussed in $`\mathrm{\S }`$ 3. We conclude in $`\mathrm{\S }`$4.

## 2 Summary of Computation

In this paper we focus on a spatially-flat CDM model with a cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.777 See, e.g., Peebles (1984), Efstathiou, Sutherland, & Maddox (1990), Stompor, Górski, & Banday (1995), Ratra et al. (1997), Sahni & Starobinsky (2000), Carroll (2001), and Peebles & Ratra (2002). While not considered in this paper, a time-variable dark energy dominated spatially-flat model is also largely consistent with current observations (see, e.g., Peebles & Ratra 1988; Ratra & Quillen 1992; Steinhardt 1999; Brax, Martin, & Riazuelo 2000; Huterer & Turner 2001; Chen & Ratra 2002; Deustua et al. 2002). As a foil we also consider a spatially open model with no $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (see, e.g., Gott 1982; Ratra & Peebles 1995). These models are discussed in more detail in R99a, R99b, and R99.

The CMB anisotropy spectra in these models are generated from quantum fluctuations in weakly coupled fields during an early epoch of inflation and so are Gausssian (see, e.g., Ratra 1985; Fischler, Ratra, & Susskind 1985). Consistent with this, the observed smaller-scale CMB anisotropy appears to be Gaussian (see, e.g., Park et al. 2001, Wu et al. 2001; Shandarin et al. 2002; Polenta et al. 2002), and the experimental noise also appears to be Gaussian, thus validating our use of the GRGS likelihood analysis method.

As discussed in R99a, the spectra are parameterized by their quadrupole-moment amplitude $`Q_{\mathrm{rms}\mathrm{PS}}`$, the nonrelativistic-mass density parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$, the baryonic-mass density parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B`$, and the age of the universe $`t_0`$. The spectra are computed for a range of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ spanning the interval 0.1 to 1 in steps of 0.1, for a range of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2`$ \[the Hubble parameter $`h=H_0/(100\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1)`$\] spanning the interval 0.005 to 0.029 in steps of 0.004, and for a range of $`t_0`$ spanning the interval 10 to 20 Gyr in steps of 2 Gyr. In total 798 spectra were computed to cover the cosmological-parameter spaces of the open and flat-$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ models. Examples of spectra are shown in Fig. 2 of R99a, Fig. 1 of R99b, and Fig. 2 of R99.

Following GRGS, for each of the 798 spectra considered the “bare” likelihood function is computed at the nominal beamwidth and calibration, as well as at a number of other values of the beamwidth and calibration determined from the measurement uncertainties. The likelihood function used in the derivation of the central values and limits is determined by integrating (marginalizing) the bare likelihood function over the beamwidth and calibration uncertainties with weights determined by the measured probability distribution functions of the beamwidth and the calibration. See GRGS for a more detailed discussion. The likelihoods are a function of four parameters mentioned above: $`Q_{\mathrm{rms}\mathrm{PS}}`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2`$, and $`t_0`$. We also compute marginalized likelihood functions by integrating over one or more of these parameters after assuming a uniform prior in the relevant parameters. The prior is set to zero outside the ranges considered for the parameters. GRGS and R99a describe the prescription used to determine central values and limits from the likelihood functions. In what follows we consider 1, 2, and 3 $`\sigma `$ highest posterior density limits which include 68.3, 95.4, and 99.7% of the area.

## 3 Results and Discussion

Table 2 lists the derived values of $`Q_{\mathrm{rms}\mathrm{PS}}`$ and bandtemperature $`\delta T_l`$ for the flat bandpower spectrum, for the OVRO data. These numerical values account for the correlated noise and offset removal, the beamwidth and calibration uncertainties, and the uncertainty due to non-CMB diffuse foreground contamination removal. These results are very consistent with those of L00. For the flat bandpower spectrum the OVRO data average 1 $`\sigma `$ $`\delta T_l`$ error bar is $`14\%`$888 For comparison, the corresponding 1 $`\sigma `$ $`\delta T_l`$ error bar is $`1012\%`$ for DMR (depending on model, Górski et al. 1998), $`15\%`$ for ARGO (R99a), and $`14\%`$ for MAX 4+5 (Ganga et al. 1998). : OVRO data results in a very significant detection of CMB anisotropy, even after accounting for the uncertainties listed above.

As discussed in R99a, R99b, and R99, the four-dimensional posterior probability density distribution function $`L(Q_{\mathrm{rms}\mathrm{PS}},\mathrm{\Omega }_0,\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2,t_0)`$ is nicely peaked in the $`Q_{\mathrm{rms}\mathrm{PS}}`$ direction but fairly flat in the other three directions. Marginalizing over $`Q_{\mathrm{rms}\mathrm{PS}}`$ results in a three-dimensional posterior distribution $`L(\mathrm{\Omega }_0,\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2,t_0)`$ which is steeper, but still relatively flat. As a consequence, limits derived from the four- and three-dimensional posterior distributions are generally not highly statistically significant. We therefore do not show contour plots of these functions here. Marginalizing over $`Q_{\mathrm{rms}\mathrm{PS}}`$ and one other parameter results in two-dimensional posterior probability distributions which are more peaked (see Figs. 1). As in the ARGO (R99a), Python (R99), and combination (R99b) data set analyses, in some cases these peaks are at an edge of the parameter range considered.

Figure 1 shows that the two-dimensional posterior distributions allow one to distinguish between different regions of parameter space at a fairly high formal level of confidence.999 See Fig. 4 of R99a, Fig. 2 of R99b, and Fig. 3 of R99 for related cosmological constraints from other data. For instance, the open model near $`\mathrm{\Omega }_00.75`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^20.03`$, and $`t_020`$ Gyr, and the flat-$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ model near $`\mathrm{\Omega }_00.6`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^20.03`$, and $`t_020`$ Gyr, are both formally ruled out at $`3`$ $`\sigma `$ confidence. However, we emphasize, as discussed in R99a, R99b, and R99, care must be exercised when interpreting the discriminative power of these formal limits, since they depend sensitively on the fact that the uniform prior has been set to zero outside the range of the parameter space we have considered.

Figure 2 shows the contours of the two-dimensional posterior distribution for $`Q_{\mathrm{rms}\mathrm{PS}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$, derived by marginalizing the four-dimensional distribution over $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2`$ and $`t_0`$. These are shown for the OVRO and DMR data, for both the open and flat-$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ models. Constraints on these parameters from the OVRO data are consistent with those from the DMR data.

Figure 3 shows the one-dimensional posterior distribution functions for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2`$, $`t_0`$, and $`Q_{\mathrm{rms}\mathrm{PS}}`$, derived by marginalizing the four-dimensional posterior distribution over the other three parameters. From these one-dimensional distributions, the OVRO data favors an open (flat-$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ = 0.33 (0.10), or $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2`$ = 0.005 (0.005), or $`t_0`$ = 10 (11) Gyr, amongst the models considered. At 2 $`\sigma `$ confidence the OVRO data formally rule out only small regions of parameter space. From the one-dimensional distributions of Fig. 3, the data require $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ $`<0.69`$ or $`>0.75`$ ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ $`<0.51`$ or $`>0.56`$), or $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2`$ $`<0.028`$ ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2`$ $`<0.028`$), or $`t_0`$ $`<19`$ Gyr ($`t_0`$ $`<19`$ Gyr) for the open (flat-$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) model at 2 $`\sigma `$.

While the statistical significance of the constraints on cosmological parameters is not high, it is reassuring that the OVRO data favor low-density, young models, consistent with indications from most other data. The constraints on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2`$ derived from the OVRO data are somewhat puzzling. They are more consistent with those derived from the Python and combination CMB anisotropy data sets analyzed by R99 and R99b, but less so with those from ARGO (R99a) and more recent data sets (Netterfield et al. 2002; Pryke et al. 2002; Stompor et al. 2001) which favor higher $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2`$. The lower $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2`$ found here is more consistent with the low Cyburt, Fields, & Olive (2001) standard nucleosynthesis value determined from helium and lithium abundance measurements, and less consistent with the high deuterium-based value of Burles, Nollett, & Turner (2001).

The peak values of the one-dimensional posterior distributions shown in Fig. 3 are listed in the figure caption for the case when the four-dimensional posterior distributions are normalized such that $`L(Q_{\mathrm{rms}\mathrm{PS}}=0\mu \mathrm{K})=1`$. With this normalization, marginalizing over the remaining parameter the fully marginalized posterior distributions are $`1.4\times 10^{67}(1.3\times 10^{67})`$ for the open (flat-$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) model. This is not inconsistent with the indication from panels $`a)`$ and $`b)`$ of Fig. 3 that the most-favored open model is marginally more favored than the most-favored flat-$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ one.

## 4 Conclusion

The OVRO data results derived here are mostly consistent with those derived from the DMR, SP94, Python I-III, ARGO, MAX 4+5, White Dish and SuZIE data. The OVRO data significantly constrains $`Q_{\mathrm{rms}\mathrm{PS}}`$ (for the flat bandpower spectrum $`Q_{\mathrm{rms}\mathrm{PS}}=38\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{+6}{5}\mu `$K at 1 $`\sigma `$) and weakly favors low-density, low $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2`$, young models.

We acknowledge valuable assistance from R. Stompor and helpful discussions with K. Ganga and E. Leitch. PM, BR, and TS acknowledge support from NSF CAREER grant AST-9875031. NS acknowledges support from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and Japanese Grant-in-Aid for Science Research Fund No. 14540290.


format: text

text:
# Gales and supergales are equivalent for defining constructive Hausdorff dimension

## 1 Introduction

Various constructive, computable, and subcomputable versions of classical Lebesgue measure have been proposed and studied  in order to quantify the sizes of complexity classes (in the broadest sense of the word), and also to clarify the idea of “random sequence.” In particular, the notion of constructive measure and Martin-Löf randomness has a rich history .

An useful idea related to Lebesgue measure is that of classical Hausdorff dimension, which provides a fine-grained guage of the sizes of null sets. For example, Hausdorff dimension is a primary tool for classifying geometric fractals . As with Lebesgue measure, various resource-bounded versions of Hausdorff dimension have been studied . In , Lutz concentrates on the constructive Hausdorff dimension of individual sequences and (even) individual finite strings. Constructive dimension turns out to be closely related to Kolmogorov complexity , so several results about the latter idea  inform the former.

Due to a result of Schnorr, constructive measure may be defined either in terms of constructive martingales or in terms of constructive supermartingales (see below for definitions). Lutz defined constructive dimension in terms of supergales for general computable probability measures on the Cantor space , but left open the question of whether this definition is equivalent to the analogous one using gales (see below for definitions). Hitchcock has recently shown that for the uniform probability measure, gales and supergales are indeed equivalent . In the current paper, we prove the equivalence for a wide range of probability measures—those satisfying a certain reasonable balance condition defined below.

Unfortunately, our techniques do not work for all computable probability measures. It is still an open question whether this balance condition can be weakened or eliminated.

## 2 Preliminaries

We borrow most of our definitions and notation from , which should be consulted for more details. Let $``$, $``$, and $``$ be the set of real numbers, rational numbers, and nonnegative integers, respectively. Let $`\{0,1\}^{}`$ be the set of finite binary strings, and let $`𝐂`$ be the set of infinite binary sequences, i.e., the *Cantor space*. We let $`\lambda `$ denote the empty string, and we let $`|w|`$ denote the length of $`w\{0,1\}^{}`$. For any $`x,y\{0,1\}^{}𝐂`$ we write $`xy`$ to mean $`x`$ is a prefix of $`y`$, and we write $`xy`$ to mean $`x`$ is a proper prefix of $`y`$. A set $`U\{0,1\}^{}`$ is a *prefix set* if no element of $`U`$ is a proper prefix of any other element in $`U`$.

A function $`d:\{0,1\}^{}`$ is *computable* if there is a computable function $`d^{}:\{0,1\}^{}\times `$ such that for all $`x\{0,1\}^{}`$ and $`r`$,

$$\left|d^{}(x,r)d(x)\right|2^r.$$

A real number $`s`$ is *computable* if the constant function $`d(w)=s`$ is computable. A function $`d:\{0,1\}^{}`$ is *lower semicomputable*, or *weakly computable* if there is a computable function $`d^{}:\{0,1\}^{}\times `$ such that for all $`x\{0,1\}^{}`$ and $`r`$,

1. $`d^{}(x,r)d^{}(x,r+1)<d(x)`$ and
2. $`d(x)=lim_r\mathrm{}d^{}(x,r)`$.

Equivalently, $`d`$ is lower semicomputable iff the set $`\{(x,q)\{0,1\}^{}\times q<d(x)\}`$ is computably enumerable (c.e.). We can define upper semicomputability similarly, whence computability is equivalent to upper and lower semicomputability combined.

A *probability measure on $`𝐂`$* is a function $`\nu :\{0,1\}^{}[0,\mathrm{})`$ such that $`\nu (\lambda )=1`$ and

$$\nu (w)=\nu (w0)+\nu (w1)$$

for all $`w\{0,1\}^{}`$. The *uniform probability measure* $`\mu `$ is defined as $`\mu (w)=2^{|w|}`$.

Fix a probability measure $`\nu `$ and a real number $`s[0,\mathrm{})`$. A *$`\nu `$-$`s`$-supergale* is a function $`d:\{0,1\}^{}[0,\mathrm{})`$ such that for all $`w\{0,1\}^{}`$,

$$\nu (w)^sd(w)\nu (w0)^sd(w0)+\nu (w1)^sd(w1).$$
(1)
A *$`\nu `$-$`s`$-gale* is a $`\nu `$-$`s`$-supergale that satisfies (1) with equality.

An *$`s`$-supergale* (respectively *$`s`$-gale*) is a $`\mu `$-$`s`$-supergale (respectively $`\mu `$-$`s`$-gale).

A *$`\nu `$-supermartingale* (respectively *$`\nu `$-martingale*) is a $`\nu `$-$`1`$-supergale (respectively $`\nu `$-$`1`$-gale).

A *supermartingale* (respectively *martingale*) is a $`\mu `$-supermartingale (respectively $`\mu `$-martingale).

For example, an $`s`$-supergale $`d`$ satisfies

$$d(w)2^s[d(w0)+d(w1)].$$

or any $`\nu `$-$`s`$-supergale $`d`$, we define its *success set* $`S^{\mathrm{}}[d]𝐂`$ by

$$zS^{\mathrm{}}[d]\text{ iff }\underset{wz}{lim\; sup}d(w)=\mathrm{}.$$

For $`zS^{\mathrm{}}[d]`$ we say that *$`d`$ succeeds on $`z`$*. It is well-known that a set $`X𝐂`$ has Lebesgue measure zero iff there is a martingale $`d`$ with $`XS^{\mathrm{}}[d]`$.

A $`\nu `$-$`s`$-supergale is *constructive* if it is lower semicomputable.

###### Definition 2.1

Let $`\nu `$ be a probability measure on $`𝐂`$. A set $`X𝐂`$ has *constructive $`\nu `$-measure zero* if there is a constructive $`\nu `$-martingale $`d`$ with $`XS^{\mathrm{}}[d]`$. We say that $`X`$ has *constructive $`\nu `$-measure one* if $`𝐂X`$ has constructive $`\nu `$-measure zero. A sequence $`R𝐂`$ is *$`\nu `$-random* if $`\{R\}`$ does not have constructive $`\nu `$-measure zero. We let $`\mathrm{RAND}_\nu `$ be the set of all $`\nu `$-random sequences.

It is well-known that $`\mathrm{RAND}_\nu `$ has $`\nu `$-measure one for all computable $`\nu `$ . The most important case of Definition 2.1 is when $`\nu =\mu `$. The following characterization of $`\mu `$-randomness was proved in . For a definition of Martin-Löf randomness, see  or .

###### Theorem 2.2 (Schnorr)

A sequence $`R𝐂`$ is $`\mu `$-random if and only if $`R`$ is random in the sense of Martin-Löf.

Schnorr also essentially proved that for computable $`\nu `$, Definition 2.1 does not change if we replace “$`\nu `$-martingale” with “$`\nu `$-supermartingale.” That is,

###### Theorem 2.3 (Schnorr )

Let $`\nu `$ be a computable probability measure on $`𝐂`$. A set $`X𝐂`$ has *constructive $`\nu `$-measure zero* if and only if there is a constructive $`\nu `$-supermartingale $`d`$ with $`XS^{\mathrm{}}[d]`$.

Lutz  develops constructive Hausdorff dimension as an analog both to classical Hausdorff dimension and to constructive measure.

###### Definition 2.4

Let $`\nu `$ be a probability measure on $`𝐂`$. Let $`X𝐂`$ be a set of sequences, and let

$$𝒢(X)=\{s[0,\mathrm{})\text{there is a constructive }\nu \text{-}s\text{-supergale }d\text{ with }XS^{\mathrm{}}[d]\}.$$

Then $`inf𝒢(X)`$ is the *constructive $`\nu `$-dimension of $`X`$* and is written $`dim_\nu (X)`$.

It is easy to show that $`dim_\nu (X)`$ is always at most one, and if $`dim_\nu (X)<1`$, then $`X`$ has constructive $`\nu `$-measure zero.

## 3 Main Result

Can we alternatively define constructive $`\nu `$-dimension as in Definition 2.4 replacing “$`\nu `$-$`s`$-supergale” with $`\nu `$-$`s`$-gale? The proof of Theorem 2.3 does not generalize to $`s<1`$. We show, however, that for certain $`\nu `$ (including $`\mu `$), one can in fact make the replacement above in Definition 2.4 without changing it. To do this we prove a weaker analog of Theorem 2.3 for $`s<1`$ (Theorem 3.2, below). The case for $`\nu =\mu `$ was shown by Hitchcock . Our more general proof has some elements similar to his, even though it was arrived at independently. Our result does not hold for all computable $`\nu `$; we need the following definition.

###### Definition 3.1

Let $`\nu `$ be a computable probability measure on $`𝐂`$. We say that $`\nu `$ is *well-balanced* if there are constants $`0<\alpha <1`$ and $`C>0`$ such that for all $`w\{0,1\}^{}`$,

$$0<\nu (w)C\alpha ^{|w|}.$$

Note that the uniform measure $`\mu `$ is well-balanced ($`\alpha =\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`C=1`$). More generally, if

$$\underset{w\{0,1\}^{},b\{0,1\}}{lim\; inf}\frac{\nu (wb)}{\nu (w)}>0,$$

then $`\nu `$ is well-balanced (but not conversely).

The following theorem, which should be compared with Theorem 2.3, immediately implies that $`\nu `$-$`s`$-gales are equivalent to $`\nu `$-$`s`$-supergales for defining constructive Hausdorff $`\nu `$-dimension, for all well-balanced $`\nu `$.

###### Theorem 3.2

Let $`\nu `$ be a well-balanced computable probability measure on $`𝐂`$, and let $`s[0,\mathrm{})`$. For every constructive $`\nu `$-$`s`$-supergale $`d`$ and every computable $`s^{}>s`$, there is a $`\nu `$-$`s^{}`$-gale $`d^{}`$ such that $`S^{\mathrm{}}[d]S^{\mathrm{}}[d^{}]`$.

Proof. We generalize an argument made in  about martingales. Let $`\nu `$ be as in the statement of the theorem. For arbitrary $`U\{0,1\}^{}`$ and $`t>0`$ define

$$d_U^t(w)=\frac{1}{\nu (w)^t}\left(\underset{u:wuU}{}\nu (wu)^t+\underset{n<|w|:w[0..(n1)]U}{}\frac{\nu (w[0..(n1)])^t}{2^{|w|n}}\right).$$
(2)
This definition makes sense provided the first sum on the right-hand side converges. Clearly, this will be true for all $`w`$ if it is true for $`w=\lambda `$, i.e, if

$$d_U^t(\lambda )=\underset{uU}{}\nu (u)^t<\mathrm{}.$$

Assume that $`d_U^t(\lambda )`$ is indeed bounded. It then follows that $`d_U^t`$ is a $`\nu `$-$`t`$-gale. This can be seen as follows: if $`U`$ is a prefix set, then we may argue as in —at most one term on the right-hand side of (2) is nonzero, and so we have two cases: some prefix of $`w`$ is in $`U`$, or otherwise. The equation for a $`\nu `$-$`t`$-gale is easy to check in either case. Now an arbitrary $`U`$ (not necessarily a prefix set) can be partitioned into the union $`U=V_0V_1V_2\mathrm{}`$ of pairwise disjoint prefix sets

$$V_i=\{wU\text{exactly }i\text{ many proper prefixes of }w\text{ are in }U\},$$

and it is then clear from (2) that

$$d_U^t=d_{V_0}^t+d_{V_1}^t+d_{V_2}^t+\mathrm{}.$$

Thus $`d_U^t`$ is the sum of $`\nu `$-$`t`$-gales and so is a $`\nu `$-$`t`$-gale. Note that if $`t`$ is computable and $`U`$ is c.e., then $`d_U^t`$ is constructive.

Let $`0s<s^{}`$ and $`d`$ be as in the statement of the theorem, and let $`c,ϵ>0`$ be such that $`\nu (x)2^{cϵ|x|}`$ for every $`x\{0,1\}^{}`$. Such $`c`$ and $`ϵ`$ exist because $`\nu `$ is well-balanced. We may assume without loss of generality that $`d(\lambda )1`$. For any $`k`$ we then have

$$\underset{w\{0,1\}^k}{}d(w)\nu (w)^sd(\lambda )1$$

by Lemma 3.3 in . For each $`i`$ let

$$U_i=\{w\{0,1\}^{}d(w)>2^i\}.$$

Then for all $`i,k`$,

$$\underset{wU_i\{0,1\}^k}{}\nu (w)^s2^i\underset{w\{0,1\}^k}{}d(w)\nu (w)^s2^i,$$

and hence,

$`{\displaystyle \underset{wU_i\{0,1\}^k}{}}\nu (w)^s^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{wU_i\{0,1\}^k}{}}\nu (w)^s\nu (w)^{s^{}s}`$
$``$ $`2^{(s^{}s)(cϵk)}{\displaystyle \underset{wU_i\{0,1\}^k}{}}\nu (w)^s`$
$``$ $`2^{(s^{}s)(cϵk)i}.`$
This in turn yields, for all $`i`$,

$`d_{U_i}^s^{}(\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{wU_i}{}}\nu (w)^s^{}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{wU_i\{0,1\}^k}{}}\nu (w)^s^{}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}2^{(s^{}s)(cϵk)i}`$
$`=`$ $`2^i{\displaystyle \frac{2^{(s^{}s)c}}{12^{(s^{}s)ϵ}}}`$
$`<`$ $`\mathrm{},`$
which means that $`d_{U_i}^s^{}`$ is well-defined.

Finally we define, as in ,

$$d^{}=\underset{i}{}id_{U_i}^s^{}.$$
(3)
We have $`d^{}(\lambda )C_ii2^i<\mathrm{}`$ ($`C`$ is a positive constant). Being the sum of $`\nu `$-$`s^{}`$-gales, $`d^{}`$ itself is a $`\nu `$-$`s^{}`$-gale, and since the set $`U=\{i,wwU_i\}`$ is clearly c.e., $`d^{}`$ is constructive. For any $`z𝐂`$, suppose $`zS^{\mathrm{}}[d]`$. Then for each $`i`$ there is a prefix $`w_i`$ of $`z`$ such that $`d(w_i)2^i`$, i.e., $`w_iU_i`$. But then by (2) we have $`d_{U_i}^s^{}(w_i)1`$, whence $`d^{}(w_i)i`$. Thus $`d^{}`$ succeeds on $`z`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Remark. In the special case where $`\nu =\mu `$, (3) reduces to

$$d^{}(w)=\underset{i}{}i\left(\underset{u:wuU_i}{}2^{s^{}|u|}+\underset{n<|w|:w[0..(n1)]U_i}{}2^{(s^{}1)(|w|n)}\right).$$

###### Corollary 3.1

Let $`\nu `$ be a well-balanced computable probability measure on $`𝐂`$. Let $`X𝐂`$ be a set of sequences, and let

$$𝒢(X)=\{s[0,\mathrm{})\text{there is a constructive }\nu \text{-}s\text{-gale }d\text{ with }XS^{\mathrm{}}[d]\}.$$

Then $`inf𝒢(X)=dim_\nu (X)`$.

###### Corollary 3.2 (Hitchcock )

Let $`X𝐂`$ be a set of sequences, and let

$$𝒢(X)=\{s[0,\mathrm{})\text{there is a constructive }s\text{-gale }d\text{ with }XS^{\mathrm{}}[d]\}.$$

Then $`inf𝒢(X)=dim_\mu (X)`$.

## 4 Further Research

If $`\nu `$ is not well-balanced, then the $`d^{}`$ defined in the proof of Theorem 3.2 may not exist. There are clearly some (ill-balanced) $`\nu `$ and constructive $`\nu `$-$`s`$-supergales $`d`$ such that the first sum in (2) with $`U=U_i`$ and $`t=s^{}`$ is unbounded. Perhaps one can restrict the sets $`U_i`$ in some way to bound the sum.

If not, perhaps there is a condition on $`\nu `$ that is strictly weaker than being well-balanced but still suffices to prove the theorem. One possible candidate is the following: there is an $`ϵ>0`$ such that $`S^{\mathrm{}}[f]=\mathrm{}`$, where $`f`$ is the $`ϵ`$-gale defined by $`f(w)=2^{ϵ|w|}\nu (w)`$. If this is the case (and if $`\nu `$ is computable and $`>0`$), then we’ll say that $`\nu `$ is *weakly balanced*. Clearly, well-balanced implies weakly balanced, but the converse does not hold. Does Theorem 3.2 hold for all weakly balanced $`\nu `$?


text:
# Spectroscopy of the neighboring massive clusters Abell 222 and Abell 223 Based on observations made at ESO – La Silla (Chile)

## 1 Introduction

A 222/223 are two Abell clusters at $`z0.21`$ separated by $`14\mathrm{}`$ on the sky, or $`2600h_{70}^1`$ kpc, belonging to the Butcher et al. (1983) photometric sample. Both clusters are rich having Abell richness class 3 (Abell 1958). While these are optically selected clusters, they have been observed by ROSAT (Wang & Ulmer 1997; David et al. 1999) and are confirmed to be massive clusters. 9 spectra of galaxies in the cluster region, most of them being cluster members, were known (Sandage et al. 1976; Newberry et al. 1988) before Proust et al. (2000, hereafter PEL) published a list of 53 spectra and did a first kinematical study of this system. PEL also found 4 galaxies at the cluster redshift in the region between the clusters (hereafter “intercluster region”), indicating a possible connection between the clusters.

We report 184 independent redshifts for 183 galaxies in the field of Abell 222 and Abell 223, more than three times the number of redshifts previously known, as well as equivalent widths for a number of lines.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sect. 2 we describe the reduction of the spectroscopic and photometric data and discuss deviations from previous values in the literature. The spatial distribution and the kinematics of the double cluster system are examined in Sect. 3 with an emphasis on finding possible substructure. We determine the luminosity and mass–to-light ratio of the clusters by selecting the red cluster sequence in Sect. 4. Our results are summarized in Sect. 5. Throughout this paper we assume an $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}=0.3,H_0=70h_{70}`$ km s-1 Mpc-1 cosmology.

## 2 Data and Data Reduction

Multi-object spectroscopy of the two clusters Abell 222 and Abell 223 was performed at the NTT on three consecutive nights in December 1999. These nights were clear with occasional high cirrus. The instrument used was EMMI with grism 2, which has a resolution of 580 at 600 nm and a dispersion of 11.6 nm/mm. With the 2048x2048 CCD pixels of 24 $`\mu `$m this leads to a dispersion of 0.28 nm/pixel. With one exception two exposures of 2700 seconds each were taken for 6 fields, 3 on each cluster. For the field centered on A 222 in the second night only one exposure of 2700 seconds was available. The wavelength calibration was done using Helium–Argon lamps, which provided typically 20 lines used in the calibration. The calibration frames were taken at the beginning of the night for the masks used during that night, before the science exposures were made.

### 2.1 Reduction of spectroscopic data

For the data reduction a semi-automated IRAF111IRAF is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatories, which are operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation. package was written by the authors that cuts out the single spectra of the CCD frames and then processes these spectra using standard IRAF routines for single slit spectroscopy. The sky spectrum was removed from all spectra using a linear fit with a $`2\sigma `$ rejection on measurements on each side of the galaxy spectrum where the position of the galaxy on the slit permitted it. Measurements from only one side of the spectrum were used otherwise. A $`2\sigma `$ rejection was used to remove cosmic rays and hot pixels. Remaining hot pixels or cosmic rays in the sky spectrum introduced fake absorption features, while hot pixels or cosmic rays in the spectrum itself lead to fake emission features. These were removed by hand.

Because the sky spectrum removal was done column by column and no distortion correction was applied, some residual sky lines remained in the final spectra, most notably of the strong \[O i\] emission at 5577 Å. At the typical redshift of the cluster members of $`z0.21`$ this line does not coincide with any important feature and thus does not cause any problems in the subsequent analysis.

### 2.2 Redshift determination

The radial velocity determination was carried out using the cross-correlation method (Tonry & Davis 1979) implemented in the RVSAO package (Kurtz & Mink 1998). Spectra of late type stars and elliptical galaxies with known radial velocities were used as templates. The redshift determination was verified by visual inspection of identified absorption and emission features.

The average internal error reported by RVSAO is $`cz=68`$ km s-1. Adding this in quadrature to the estimated error of the wavelength calibration of $`cz=110`$ km s-1, we estimate the error in the redshift determination of single galaxies to be $`\delta z=0.0004`$.

Fig. 1 shows a comparison of our redshift measurements and the redshifts listed by PEL. The obvious outlier in the large panel is from the sample of Sandage et al. (1976). The inset shows a broad agreement between our results and the values of PEL. Ignoring the obvious outlier, the average difference between the measurements is $`zz_{\mathrm{PEL}}=(0.2\pm 1.1)\times 10^3`$. Student’s t-test rejects the null hypothesis of different sample means with same variance at higher than the 99% level for the 23 cluster galaxies we have in common with PEL. However, Student’s t-test confirms the hypothesis of different sample means with same variance at higher than the 99% level for all their and our cluster members, indicating that PEL observed a sub–sample with a significantly different mean value from the larger sample we describe here.

We ruled out the possibility that this discrepancy could have been caused by taking all calibration frames before the science exposures were taken. This could have introduced a shift of the zero point if the masks were not moved back to their original position for the science exposures. We confirmed that this is not the case by determining the radial velocity of the subtracted sky spectrum in the wavelength calibrated frames. We found that, if a zero point shift occurred, it must be smaller than 30 km s-1, confirming the accuracy of our data.

### 2.3 Equivalent widths

We measured equivalent widths for the \[O ii\]$`\lambda `$3727, \[O iii\]$`\lambda `$5007 emission lines, and H$`\beta `$ and H$`\alpha `$ emission and absorption lines. The integration ranges for the features and the continuum were fixed by the values given in Table 1.

\[O ii\] and H$`\alpha `$ are important indicators of star formation rates (Kennicutt 1998). To accurately determine the equivalent widths and in particular estimate their significance level we follow the definition of equivalent widths given by Czoske et al. (2001):

$`W_\lambda ={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N_{\mathrm{int}}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_i}{\overline{f_\mathrm{c}}}}\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda N_{\mathrm{int}}\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda ,`$ (1)
where $`f_i`$ is the flux in pixel $`i`$, $`N_{\mathrm{int}}`$ is the number of pixels in the integration range, $`\overline{f_\mathrm{c}}`$ is the continuum level estimated as the mean of the continuum regions on either side of the line, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda `$ is the dispersion in Å/pixel. Note that with this definition emission lines have *positive* equivalent widths.

The significance of an equivalent width measurement is given by (Czoske et al. 2001)

$`\sigma _{W_\lambda }^2=`$ (2)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{S}{N}}\right)^2\left[\left(W_\lambda +N_{\mathrm{int}}\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda \right)\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda +{\displaystyle \frac{\left(W_\lambda +N_{\mathrm{int}}\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda \right)^2}{N_\mathrm{c}}}\right],`$
where the signal to noise ratio $`S/N=\overline{f_\mathrm{c}}/\sigma _\mathrm{c}`$, and $`\overline{f_\mathrm{c}}`$ is obtained by averaging over $`N_\mathrm{c}`$ pixel in the wavelength range given in Table 1.

All wavelengths are given in the restframe of the object. All spectra were normalized to a continuum fit before equivalent widths were measured. The catalog lists all \[O ii\] and \[O iii\] emission features and all H$`\beta `$ and H$`\alpha `$ emission and absorption features that were detected with a significance $`>2\sigma `$.

### 2.4 Photometry

Wide-field imaging of the cluster pair was performed over two nights in December 1999 with the Wide Field Imager on the ESO/MPG 2.2m on La Silla. Eleven 900 second exposures in $`R`$-band and three 900 second exposures in $`V`$ band were taken using a dithering pattern which filled the gaps between the CCDs in the mosaic in the coadded image. The image reduction was carried out using a combination of self–written routines and routines which are part of the IMCAT software package written by Nick Kaiser (http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/$``$kaiser/imcat). The images were flattened with medianed night-sky flatfields from all the $`R`$ or $`V`$ band long exposure images taken over the two nights. The images were aligned using a process which assumes each CCD in the mosaic can be translated to a common detector–plane coordinate system using a linear transformation of coordinates (a shift in both axes and rotation allowed) and that the detector-plane coordinates can then be transformed into sky coordinates using a two dimensional polynomial, in this case a bi-cubic polynomial. The linear transformation from each CCD to the detector-plane is assumed to be constant for all the images whereas the transformation from detector-plane to sky coordinates is determined separately for each image to allow for both the pointing offsets in the dithering pattern and any changes in the distortion pattern between images. By comparing the positions of stars among the individual images and to the positions in the USNO catalog, both systems of equations for coordinate transformations were solved using $`\chi ^2`$ minimization of the final stellar positions. The rms dispersion of the centroids of the stars used in the fitting were $`0\stackrel{}{.}016`$ among the input images and $`0\stackrel{}{.}54`$ between the input images and the USNO coordinates, with the average offset vector being consistent with zero in all regions of the image. Further details of this technique along with justifications for the linear translation between CCD and detector plane can be found in Clowe & Schneider (2001). The mapping of each input CCD was performed using a triangular method with linear interpolation which preserves surface brightness even if the mapping changes the area of a pixel. The resulting images were then averaged using a 3$`\sigma `$ clipping algorithm to remove cosmic rays and moving objects. The final $`R`$-band image can be found in Fig. 6.

Objects were detected in the $`R`$-band image using SExtractor (Bertin & Arnouts 1996), and the $`V`$-band magnitudes for the objects were measured using SExtractor in two-image mode. The FWHM of bright but unsaturated stars in the coadded images are $`0\stackrel{}{.}87`$ for $`R`$ and $`1\stackrel{}{.}05`$ in $`V`$. Zeropoints were measured from Landolt standard fields (Landolt 1992), but the $`V`$-band data is known to have been taken in non-photometric conditions. From isolating the red cluster galaxy sequence in a color-magnitude plot (Fig. 2), corrected for the $`A_B=0.086`$ mag dust extinction (Schlegel et al. 1998) using the conversion factors from Cardelli et al. (1989), and comparing to predicted colors of cluster elliptical galaxies in a passive evolution model (Fukugita et al. 1995), a correction of $`0.23`$ mag has been applied to the $`V`$ magnitudes to correct for the additional atmospheric extinction. This correction also causes the stellar $`VR`$ colors to have the theoretically expected values (Gunn & Stryker 1983).

All magnitudes are isophotal magnitudes with the limiting isophote at 27.96 mag/$`\mathrm{arcsec}^2`$. We determine the completeness limit of the photometric catalog to be at $`R=24`$ mag from the point where the number counts of objects departs from a power law.

An excerpt from the big catalog of spectroscopically measured galaxies listing the 10 brightest galaxies in $`R`$–band in both cluster regions can be found in Table 2. The full catalog is available in electronic form at the at the Centre de Données astronomiques de Strasbourg (CDS)222http://cdsweb.u-strasbg.fr/.

## 3 Spatial Distribution and Kinematics

After removing some obvious background and foreground galaxies ($`z>0.3`$ or $`z<0.1`$), an iterative $`3\sigma `$ clipping was used to decide upon cluster membership. We found 81 galaxies belonging to Abell 222 and 72 galaxies belonging to Abell 223 or the possible bridge connecting both clusters.

The mean redshift of the individual clusters are $`z=0.2126\pm 0.0008`$ and $`z=0.2079\pm 0.0008`$, for A 222 and A 223, respectively. This differs significantly from the values of $`z=0.2143`$ and $`z=0.2108`$ found by PEL for A 222 and A 223, respectively. The quoted errors include the statistical error of $`\delta z=0.0005`$ added linearly to the estimated error of the cluster member selection of $`\delta z=0.0003`$. This systematic error was estimated from varying the cut level of the recursive clipping procedure from $`2\sigma `$ to $`3.5\sigma `$ and calculating the means of these cuts. The statistical errors were calculated from a bootstrap resampling of the cluster members. The measured velocity dispersions have to be transformed to the restframe of the cluster according to the transformation law

$`\sigma _{\mathrm{cor}}={\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{1+\overline{z}}},`$ (3)
(Harrison 1974). The restframe velocity dispersions for the individual clusters are $`\sigma _{\mathrm{cor}}=1014+9071\text{ }`$ km s-1 and $`\sigma _{\mathrm{cor}}=1032+9976\text{ }`$ km s-1, for A 222 and A 223, respectively. This is in good agreement with the values found by PEL of $`\sigma =1013\pm 150`$ km s-1 and $`\sigma =1058\pm 160`$ km s-1 for A 222 and A223, respectively. The errors of the velocity dispersion are the $`(1\alpha )=68\%`$ confidence interval given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{(n1)\sigma ^2}{\chi _{n1;\alpha /2}^2}}<\sigma ^2<{\displaystyle \frac{(n1)\sigma ^2}{\chi _{n1;1\alpha /2}^2}},`$ (4)
for $`n`$ galaxies in the sample. The redshift and velocity dispersion for A 223 do not change significantly if the 3 galaxies from the intercluster region in our sample are removed. Figs. 3 to 5 show the corresponding radial velocity distributions of the individual samples.

The values for the velocity dispersion are somewhat higher than those derived from X–ray luminosities. David et al. (1999) report bolometric luminosities of $`L_\mathrm{X}=7.65\times 10^{44}`$ erg s-1 and $`L_\mathrm{X}=6.94\times 10^{44}`$ erg s-1 from ROSAT PSPC observations for A 222 and A 223, respectively, for $`H_0=50`$ km s-1 Mpc-1. Using the $`L_\mathrm{X}`$$`\sigma `$ relationships of Wu et al. (1999) we get $`\sigma _\mathrm{X}=845887`$ km s-1 for A 222 and $`\sigma _\mathrm{X}=828871`$ km s-1 for A 223. Compared to the velocity dispersions derived from the spectroscopic observations, both cluster appear to be underluminous in X–rays.

Together with the data of PEL we now have radial velocities for 6 galaxies in the possible bridge connecting both clusters. With our new values for the radial velocity of A 223 the observation made by PEL, that most of the bridge galaxies are in the low–velocity tail, does not hold anymore. In fact they all appear to be close to the maximum or higher of the velocity histogram shown in Fig. 5. Because A 222 is the cluster at higher redshift, this is the expected behavior should these galaxies indeed belong to a bridge connecting both clusters

SExtrator also provides an algorithm to separate galaxies from stars. Each object is assigned a CLASS\_STAR value, which is 1 for stars, 0 for galaxies, and lies in between for ambiguous objects. Fig. 6 displays a projected galaxy number density map generated with the adaptive kernel density estimate method described by Pisani (1996) for a color selected sample of 702 objects with $`R<21`$ and $`0.7<VR<0.9`$ and SExtractor CLASS\_STAR $`<0.1`$ from the WFI images. Overplotted are the positions of all spectroscopically identified cluster members.

Fig. 6 clearly exhibits two density peaks in A 223. Both peaks are separated by $`4\stackrel{}{.}8`$ and are centered at ($`\alpha `$=01:37:53.5, $`\delta `$=$``$12:49:21.2) and ($`\alpha `$=01:38:01.8, $`\delta `$=$``$12:45:07.0). These peaks are also visible in the density distribution of the 181 spectroscopically identified cluster galaxies. Also visible is an overdensity of color selected objects in the intercluster region, hinting at a connection between both clusters.

We applied the Dressler & Shectman (1988, DS) test for local kinematic deviations in the projected galaxy distribution. The DS test is based on computing deviations of local mean velocity and velocity dispersion from the global values. The local values are calculated for each of the $`N`$ galaxies and its $`n1`$ nearest neighbors. The statistics used to quantify the presence of substructure is

$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\delta _i`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{n}{\sigma _{\mathrm{glob}}^2}}\left[\left(\overline{v}_{\mathrm{glob}}\overline{v}_{\mathrm{loc},\mathrm{i}}\right)^2+\left(\sigma _{\mathrm{glob}}\sigma _{\mathrm{loc},\mathrm{i}}\right)^2\right]\right\}^{\frac{1}{2}}`$
The $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ statistics is calibrated by randomly shuffling the radial velocities while keeping the observed galaxy positions fixed. The significance of the observed $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{obs}}`$ is assessed by the fraction of simulations whose $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{sim}}`$ is smaller than $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{obs}}`$.

We find that, while the DS test is clearly able to separate both clusters at better than the 99.9% confidence level, it does not find any substructure in the individual clusters for values of $`8<n<16`$.

Also the DIP statistic (Hartigan & Hartigan 1985), which we calculated with the FORTRAN routine provided by Hartigan (1985), is not able to reject the null hypothesis of an unimodal distribution for any of the cluster samples. We tested for deviations from a normal Gaussian distribution by computing the skewness and kurtosis of both cluster samples. We found that we cannot reject a Gaussian parent population for both cluster samples at the $`1\sigma `$ level.

The wedge velocity diagrams in Fig. 7 clearly show the Abell system at $`z0.21`$. A small group of five galaxies can be seen behind A 223 at $`z=0.242`$. We derive a velocity dispersion of $`\sigma =330`$ km s-1, confirming that it is not only close in the projected spatial distribution but also in redshift space.

## 4 Mass–to–light ratio

To determine the luminosity of the clusters we applied the same cut on color and CLASS\_STAR as above in a circle with 1.4 $`h_{70}^1`$ Mpc radius around the bright cD galaxy of A 222 and the center of the line connecting both density peaks in A 223. We binned the selected objects in bins of 0.5 mag and fitted a Schechter (1976) luminosity function,

$`n(L)\mathrm{d}L=n^{}(L/L^{})^\alpha \mathrm{exp}(L/L^{})\mathrm{d}(L/L^{}),`$ (6)
where $`L^{}`$ is the characteristic luminosity, $`\alpha `$ is the faint–end slope, and $`n^{}`$ is a normalization constant. Written in terms of absolute magnitude Eq. (6) becomes

$`N(M)\mathrm{d}M=kn^{}\mathrm{exp}\{[k(\alpha +1)(MM^{})]`$
$`\mathrm{exp}[k(MM^{})]\}\mathrm{d}M,`$ (7)
where $`M^{}`$ is the absolute magnitude corresponding to $`L^{}`$ and $`k=\mathrm{ln}10/2.5`$ (Kashikawa et al. 1995). Using k correction and a passive evolution correction on the synthetic elliptical galaxy spectra of Bruzual & Charlot (1993), for the Abell system $`M_R=m_R5\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{d_\mathrm{l}}{\mathrm{Mpc}}\right)24.91`$, $`d_\mathrm{l}`$ being the luminosity distance.

The fit is performed by minimizing the quantity

$`\chi ^2={\displaystyle \frac{\left[N(M_i)N_f(M_i)\right]^2}{\sigma _i^2}},`$ (8)
with $`N(M_i)`$ and $`N_f(M_i)`$ being the observed and fitted number of galaxies in the $`i`$th magnitude bin. The variance of galaxies in each magnitude bin was assumed to be that of a Poissonian distribution.

The best–fit Schechter function for A 222 has $`M^{}=22.1\pm 0.2`$, $`\alpha =1.04\pm 0.12`$, and $`n^{}=31\pm 11`$. The $`\chi ^2`$ value for these parameters is 12.7 with 7 degrees of freedom. The best–fit parameters for A 223 are $`M^{}=23.1\pm 0.2`$, $`\alpha =1.20\pm 0.06`$, and $`n^{}=15\pm 5`$ with a minimum $`\chi ^2`$ value of 7.0, also for 7 degrees of freedom. From Figs. 8 and 9 we see, that the Schechter function is a good representation of the faint end, while it slightly underpredicts the number of bright galaxies. Although the values of $`M^{}`$ differ by one magnitude they are compatible with values from the literature. E.g. Trèvese et al. (1996) find $`M^{}=22.66\pm 0.52`$ from a study of 36 Abell clusters for a fixed $`\alpha =1.25`$. For this value of $`\alpha `$ the $`M^{}`$ value for A 222 increases to $`22.4`$, but the fit then has a reduced $`\chi ^2`$ of 2.2. In the following we only use the lower value of $`M^{}=22.1`$ for A 222.

The total $`R`$–band luminosity of the red cluster sequence is determined by extrapolating the luminosity function. The observed fraction of the total luminosity is given by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha +2,L_{\mathrm{lim}}/L^{})/\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha +2)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(,)`$ is the incomplete Gamma function, $`L_{\mathrm{lim}}`$ is the completeness limit, which in this case is given by the selection parameters, and $`L^{}`$ is the luminosity corresponding to the fitted $`M^{}`$ (Tustin et al. 2001). It follows from the chosen magnitude cut and the size of the bins, that in our case the limiting magnitude $`M_R=19.0`$. This implies that we observe $`91.4\%`$ and $`81.7\%`$ of the total light in A 222 and A 223, respectively. The total $`R`$–band luminosity of the red cluster sequence then is $`L_R=(3.1\pm 0.3)\times 10^{12}h_{70}^2L_{\mathrm{}}`$ for A 222 and $`L_R=(4.4\pm 0.4)\times 10^{12}h_{70}^2L_{\mathrm{}}`$ for A 223, where the errors reflect the uncertainty in the parameters of the luminosity function.

We compute mass–to–light ratios assuming an isothermal sphere model for both clusters with the velocity dispersion determined in Sect. 3. The mass of an isothermal sphere inside a radius $`r`$ is given by

$`M(<r)={\displaystyle \frac{\pi \sigma _{\mathrm{cor}}^2}{G}}r.`$ (9)
We get the following mass–to–light ratios inside $`1.4h_{70}^1`$ Mpc:

$`\mathrm{A}222:(M/L)_R`$ $`=`$ $`(343\pm 60)h_{70}M_{\mathrm{}}/L_{\mathrm{}},`$
$`\mathrm{A}223:(M/L)_R`$ $`=`$ $`(253\pm 47)h_{70}M_{\mathrm{}}/L_{\mathrm{}}.`$
By selecting only the red cluster sequence we miss a significant part of the cluster luminosity. Folkes et al. (1999) found a ratio between the luminosity of their “type 1” galaxies (E/S0) and the total luminosity of $`0.59\pm 0.07`$ in the fields of the 2dF survey. Using this correction factor we arrive at the final result:

$`\mathrm{A}222:(M/L)_R`$ $`=`$ $`(202\pm 43)h_{70}M_{\mathrm{}}/L_{\mathrm{}},`$
$`\mathrm{A}223:(M/L)_R`$ $`=`$ $`(149\pm 33)h_{70}M_{\mathrm{}}/L_{\mathrm{}}.`$
These values slightly overestimate the true mass–to–light ratio because the use of isophotal magnitudes cuts off part of the galaxy luminosity and the intracluster light.

If we use the velocity dispersion derived from X–ray measurement instead of the spectroscopically determined velocity dispersion we arrive at mass–to–light ratios that are lower by $`20\%`$ but still agree within the $`1\sigma `$ error with the values quoted above.

## 5 Conclusions

We have reported 184 independent redshifts measurements for 183 galaxies in the field of Abell 222 and Abell 223, as well as equivalent widths for \[O ii\], \[O iii\], H$`\beta `$, and H$`\alpha `$, $`R`$ magnitudes, and $`VR`$ color.

From a sample of 153 galaxies which we identified as cluster members, we derived a mean redshift and restframe velocity dispersion of $`z=0.2126\pm 0.0008`$, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{cor}}=1014+9071\text{ }`$ km s-1 for A 222 and $`z=0.2078\pm 0.0008`$, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{cor}}=1032+9976\text{ }`$ km s-1 for A 223. The values of the redshifts are clearly outside the error margins of the values previously reported by PEL. By comparing our wavelength calibration to the sky spectrum, which provides an independent wavelength standard, we were able to confirm the accuracy of our data and rule out the possibility of a zero point shift of more than 30 km s-1 for each mask. $`R`$ and $`V`$ band photometry was taken from WFI data.

Although the projected density maps of all spectroscopically identified galaxies and of a color selected sample with 702 members clearly show spatial substructure in A 223, neither the DS test nor the DIP statistics were able to find any kinematic substructure. Also no indications of a non–Gaussian parent population could be found.

We fitted a Schechter luminosity function to objects in the red cluster sequence identified in a color–magnitude diagram. Assuming an isothermal sphere model for the cluster we derived $`(M/L)`$ ratios in $`R`$–band, which are comparable for both clusters. The computed values are $`(M/L)_R=(202\pm 43)h_{70}M_{\mathrm{}}/L_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`(M/L)_R=(149\pm 33)h_{70}M_{\mathrm{}}/L_{\mathrm{}}`$ for A 222 and A 223, respectively. This is within the range of values reported by other groups for other cluster.

Dressler (1978) gave a range of $`140420h_{70}M_{\mathrm{}}/L_{\mathrm{}}`$ in a study of 12 rich clusters. Typical values for virial mass–to–light ratio are at values of $`M/L210h_{70}M_{\mathrm{}}/L_{\mathrm{}}`$ (Carlberg et al. 1996). Typical values derived from X–ray masses tend to be somewhat lower than those from virial masses. Hradecky et al. (2000) find a median value of $`(M/L)_V140h_{70}M_{\mathrm{}}/L_{\mathrm{}}`$ in a study of eight nearby clusters and groups.

We cannot exclude the possibility that the values we report here are biased towards higher values by using an isothermal sphere model. Both cluster geometries clearly deviate from circular symmetric profiles. More robust mass estimates may thus lead to lower $`(M/L)`$ ratios.

A detailled discussion whether the galaxies between both clusters indeed belong to a structure connecting the cluster pair will be part of a forthcoming weak lensing study of this system.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Joan–Marc Miralles and Lindsay King for help and useful discussions. This work was supported by the TMR Network ”Gravitational Lensing: New Constraints on Cosmology and the Distribution of Dark Matter” of the EC under contract No. ERBFMRX-CT97-0172.