1: \documentstyle[aaspp4,flushrt,psfig]{article}
2: %\documentstyle[emulateapj,flushrt,psfig]{article}
3: %\setlength{\topmargin}{0.5in}
4: \begin{document}
5:
6: \title{Inhomogeneous Absorbers and Derived Column Densities}
7: \author{Bassem M. Sabra}
8: \affil{American University of Science and Technology, P. O. Box 95, Zahle,
9: LEBANON}
10: \author{Fred Hamann}
11: \affil{Department of Astronomy, University of Florida, Gainesville,
12: FL 32611, USA}
13:
14: \affil{\it{ApJ, submitted}}
15:
16: \begin{abstract}
17: We study the dependence of column densities derived from
18: absorption lines on the spatial distribution of the
19: ions in an absorber. In particular, we investigate four
20: varieties of coverage by the absorber of the background
21: source: the familiar homogeneous partial coverage (HPC), and three
22: functional forms that parameterize inhomogeneous coverage:
23: a powerlaw, an ellipse quandrant, and a Gaussian distribution.
24: We calculate the residual line intensities obtained from our
25: inhomogeneous coverage models and then use these intensities as
26: ``observed'' quantities to compute the optical depth and covering
27: factors assuming HPC.
28: We find that the resulting spatially-averaged optical depths
29: are comparable (within a factor of $\lesssim 1.5$) to the average
30: optical depths of the input distributions, as long as the input
31: distributions do not contain spatially narrow ``spikes.'' Such spikes
32: (very large optical depths over a small coverage area) can profoundly
33: affect the average optical depth in the absorber but have little
34: impact on the observed intensities.
35: We also study the converse approach: we start with HPC
36: as the assumed physical model and then infer the parameters of the
37: inhomogeneous
38: coverage models through a doublet analysis. Again the
39: resulting average optical depths are comparable to the
40: corresponding quantity of the input distribution.
41: Finally, we construct a more realistic two-dimensional optical
42: depth distriubution based on a random distribution of absorbing
43: clouds, and we use that to calculate observed intensities. A
44: doublet analysis applied to those intensities shows all four of
45: our simple analytic functions yield an accurate estimate of the
46: true average optical depth, while the powerlaw yields the best
47: approximation to the intial distribution.
48:
49:
50:
51:
52: \end{abstract}
53:
54: \keywords{line: formation--- absorption lines---radiative transfer
55: ---quasars}
56:
57: \section{Introduction}
58: Resonant absorption lines observed in the spectra of many astronomical
59: objects provide important diagnostics about the physical and chemical states of
60: the environments in which they originate.
61: One of the important aims of absorption line studies is determining accurate elemental
62: abundances. The steps involved in using absorption lines as abundance diagnostics are the
63: following: Derive ionic column
64: densities in a way that accounts for an absorber that might be inhomogeneous and/or
65: partially covering the background light source, and convert column density ratios to
66: abundance ratios using ionization corrections. In this paper we are going to discuss the
67: first issue, namely the effect of the spatial distribution of ions on the column densities
68: as derived from the observed absorption lines.
69:
70: A common implicit assumption made when studying absorption line systems
71: in general
72: is that a compact source, such as a star or a quasar, irradiates a cloud whose
73: internal structures are large compared to the projected size of the continuum
74: source. However, in the more general case, we must consider the
75: two-dimensional distribution of optical depths, $\tau(x,y,\lambda)$, across
76: the projected area of the emitting source.
77: The observed residual intensity in an absorption line is then:\\
78: \begin{equation}
79: I(\lambda)=\int\int S(x, y, \lambda)~e^{-\tau(x,y,\lambda)}~\frac{dxdy}{A},
80: \end{equation}
81: where $S(x, y, \lambda)$ is the two-dimensional intensity distribution,
82: emitted by the source at wavelength
83: $\lambda$, $A=\int\int dxdy$ is the total projected area of the source,
84: and $\tau(x, y, \lambda)$ is the optical depth distribution across
85: the surface of the continuum emitter. The spatial distribution of the
86: column density per unit wavelength $\lambda$, $N_\lambda (x,y)$, is related to
87: $\tau(x,y,\lambda)$ by:
88: \begin{equation}
89: N_\lambda(x, y) d\lambda=\frac{m_e c^2}{\pi e^2 f \lambda^2} \tau(x,y,\lambda) d\lambda,
90: \end{equation}
91: where $m_e$ is the mass of the electron, $c$ is the speed of light,
92: $e$ is the charge of the electron,
93: and $f$ is the oscillator strength of the line.
94: Hereafter, we will always assume dependence
95: on wavelength, though we will not always indicate it, for the sake of
96: not cluttering the equations below.
97:
98: Equation (1) expresses the most general situation where the observed
99: spectrum is an intensity-weighted average of $e^{-\tau(x, y, \lambda)}$
100: over the projected area of the emitter. The residual intensity in an absorption
101: line depends non-trivially on the optical depth distribution $\tau(x, y, \lambda)$.
102: This paper examines a wide range of possible spatial optical depth distributions,
103: characterized for convenience by three functional forms, to study
104: the effects of the shape of the optical depth distribution on the absorption
105: lines, and conversely, on our ability to use the observed absorption lines
106: as diagnostics of the optical depths and column densities in the
107: absorber.
108:
109: The ionic column density
110: derived from absorption lines depends on how the absorbing
111: cloud covers the continuum source: HPC
112: (Wampler et al. 1995; Barlow, Sargent, \& Hamann 1997;
113: Hamann et al. 1997), or inhomogeneous coverage
114: (de Kool, Korista, \& Arav 2002).
115: The term {\it homogeneous} as employed in this paper will always refer to the
116: optical depth being constant across all or part of
117: the spatially extended emission source. We
118: extend the formalism introduced in de Kool et al. (2002), which we will
119: refer to as inhomogeneous partial coverage (IPC), to explore the effects
120: of different variants of inhomogeneous coverage and to compare them with HPC
121: over a wide range of physical conditions. Since we do not know what
122: the optical depth distributions are in real absorbers, it is important to
123: consider a range of possibilities and compare their effects on line strengths
124: and derived column densities.
125: We show how to reparameterize a two-dimensional
126: optical depth distribution to a one-dimensional function in \S 5 and show that
127: the simple IPC prescriptions we study here provide relatively accurate
128: representations of more complicated distributions.
129:
130: \subsection{HPC Analysis}
131: In the spectra of quasar absorption line systems, for example, it has
132: been pointed out that doublet ratios sometimes
133: differ from what one would expect from atomic physics
134: (e.g., Petitjean, Rauch, \& Carswell 1994; Wampler, Chugai, \& Petitjean
135: 1995; Barlow et al. 1997; Hamann et al. 1997).
136: Hamann et al. (1997) provided an explanation of the
137: ratio discrepancy in terms of a HPC model.
138: In this model, the absorbing cloud covers only a fraction, $C_f$, of the
139: continuum source, with the implicit assumption that the coverage
140: fraction for both lines is the same (e.g., see Ganguly et al. 1999;
141: Gabel et al. 2002 for situations when this is not the case).
142: The residual intensities in the doublet lines according
143: to this HPC model are a special case of Eq. (1), normalized to
144: unity in the continuum:
145: \begin{equation}
146: I_s=(1-C_f)+C_f e^{-\tau_s}
147: \end{equation}
148: for the stronger line, and
149: \begin{equation}
150: I_w=(1-C_f)+C_f e^{-\tau_w}
151: \end{equation}
152: for the weaker line. The $C_f$'s and the $\tau$'s are also functions
153: of $\lambda$. Given $I_s$ and $I_w$, at each wavelength across the
154: profile, for a particular
155: doublet, one can solve simultaneously for the coverage fraction, $C_f$,
156: and $\tau_w = \frac{f_w~\lambda_w}{f_s~\lambda_s}~\tau_s$, where
157: $f_s$ and $f_w$ are the
158: oscillator strengths of the strong and weak lines, respectively,
159: while $\lambda_s$ and $\lambda_w$ are wavelengths of the line doublet.
160: Ganguly et al. (1999) gave a general expression for $C_f$ when
161: $\tau_s : \tau_w$ is not necessarily $2 : 1$. For this
162: special $2 : 1$ case, such as for
163: \ion{C}{4} $\lambda\lambda 1548, 1551$, Hamann et al. (1997) and
164: Barlow et al. (1997) found that:
165: \begin{equation}
166: C_f=\frac{I_w^2-2~I_w+1}{I_s-2~I_w+1},
167: \end{equation}
168: and the optical depth in the stronger line of the doublet is:
169: \begin{equation}
170: \tau_s=2 \ln\left(\frac{1-I_w}{I_w-I_s}\right).
171: \end{equation}
172:
173: The HPC model uncovered additional layers of complexity in dealing
174: with absorption lines. Barlow et al. (1997) found evidence that
175: the coverage fraction can vary with velocity across the absorption
176: profiles. Arav et al. (1999) discovered an apparent trend between the
177: coverage fraction and the ionization potential of the absorbing
178: ion in the Broad Absorption Line (BAL) QSO PG~0946+301. Another apparent
179: trend was found by Hamann et al. (2001) in which stronger lines
180: seem to have higher coverage fractions. The HPC analysis prompted
181: de Kool et al. (2002) to introduce an inhomogeneous
182: coverage prescription (the IPC, we give a detailed description below).
183: The important difference between the HPC and IPC is the inhomogeniety
184: of coverage. In the IPC formalism the absorbing cloud partially, or sometimes
185: completely, covers the continuum source, but inhomogeneously, i.e.
186: at some locations the optical depth is high, while at others it is
187: low or simply absent. de Kool et al. (2002) parameterized the spatial
188: distribution of optical depths across the surface of the source as a
189: powerlaw in one dimension. Our study will investigate this powerlaw and
190: other parameterizations, provide extensive comparisons with the HPC analysis
191: over a wide range of optical depths, and use the IPC prescriptions
192: directly to derive optical depths from residual intensities synthesized
193: using Eqs. (3) and (4), and develop a formalism to derive properties of
194: the IPC distributions based on the ratios of absorption lines in doublets.
195:
196:
197: \section{The IPC Models}
198: A natural question arises in light of the IPC models:
199: What is the effect of the shape of the optical depth distribution
200: on the ionic column densities one measures from the absorption lines,
201: and how do these column densities compare with those derived under the
202: HPC assumption? To address these issues, we first show how an
203: arbitrary optical depth distribution determines the residual intensity
204: level in an absorption line (based on de Kool et al. 2002).
205:
206: Consider a two-dimensional continuum source with a intensity, $S(x, y, \lambda)$,
207: covered with a cloud with an optical depth distribution $\tau(x,y,\lambda)$.
208: The resulting residual intensity $I(\lambda)$ is given by Eq. (1). If the
209: average emitted intensity is:\\
210: \begin{equation}
211: S_0(\lambda)=\int\int S(x, y, \lambda) \frac{dxdy}{A},
212: \end{equation}
213: then we can define $f(\tau, \lambda)d\tau$, the fraction of the
214: intensity covered by optical depths between $\tau$ and $\tau+d\tau$, as:
215: \begin{equation}
216: f(\tau, \lambda)d\tau=\frac{S(x, y, \lambda)}{S_0(\lambda)} \frac{dxdy}{A}.
217: \end{equation}
218: If the source has uniform brightness, then the fraction of the area
219: covered by optical depths between $\tau$ and $\tau+d\tau$ is:
220: \begin{equation}
221: \frac{dxdy}{A}=f(\tau, \lambda)d\tau.
222: \end{equation}
223: With these definitions Eq. (1) reduces to, in normalized units ($A=1$) and $S_0=1$:
224: \begin{equation}
225: I(\lambda)=\int_{\tau_{min}}^{\tau_{max}} f(\tau,\lambda)~e^{-\tau(\lambda)}~d\tau,
226: \end{equation}
227: where $\tau_{max}$ and $\tau_{min}$ are the maximum and minimum optical
228: depths, respectively, at $\lambda$. Without
229: loss of generality, we can rearrange any two-dimensional
230: optical depth distribution to a one-dimensional distribution (see \S 5)
231: that preserves the fraction of the source (intensity or area) covered at
232: each wavelength. With all these simplifications, the fraction
233: of the area covered by optical depths between $\tau$ and $\tau+d\tau$
234: is $dx=f(\tau, \lambda)d\tau$, where $x$ is a normalized spatial
235: coordinate between 0 and 1.
236:
237: We consider here three examples for the optical depth distribution.
238: In the first one, the optical depth, or equivalently the column density
239: of some ion, follows a powerlaw distribution in the spatial coordinate
240: $x$, as in de Kool et al. (2002). In the second parameterization, the
241: optical depth distribution looks like one quadrant of an ellipse
242: The third parametrization is a Gaussian distribution. These distribution
243: functions represent an extremely wide range of possible optical depth
244: distributions. The powerlaw and Gaussian are different variations
245: on inhomogeneous complete coverage, while the Ellipse is similar to HPC
246: but with the inclusion of inhomogeneous
247: {\it partial} coverage (see \S 2.2). It is worth keeping in mind that HPC is a special
248: case of the IPC analysis where the spatial optical depth distribution
249: involves a step function, a fact which leads to the relatively simple
250: Equations (3) and (4). Our study will go beyond the results presented
251: in de Kool et al. (2002) not only by investigating the Gaussian and Ellipse
252: parameterizations, in addition to the powerlaw, but also by presenting a coherent,
253: easy-to-follow formalism to glean information from absorption line data.
254: The treatment of the powerlaw in this paper will be more general than that in
255: de Kool et al. (2002), in which $\tau_{min}$ was restricted to zero.
256:
257: \subsection{Powerlaw Distribution}
258: With the assumptions taken above, an optical depth described by a powerlaw
259: distribution is then mathematically expressed as:
260: \begin{equation}
261: \tau=(\tau_{max}-\tau_{min}) x^a+\tau_{min},
262: \end{equation}
263: where $\tau_{max}$ and $\tau_{min}$ are the maximum and minimum
264: optical depths, respectively, $a$ is the powerlaw index, and $x$
265: is a normalized spatial coordinate between 0 and 1.
266: We show examples in Figure 1. A value of
267: $a=1$ describes a straight line. The powerlaw index in Eq. (11) is
268: related to the $p$ parameter in de Kool et al. (2002) by $a=1/(p+1)$.
269: For our powerlaw distribution, the fraction of the area covered by
270: optical depths between $\tau$ and $\tau+d\tau$ is:
271: \begin{equation}
272: dx=\frac{1}{a} \frac{(\tau-\tau_{min})^{(1-a)/a}}{(\tau_{max}-\tau_{min})^{1/a}}~d\tau,
273: \end{equation}
274: which corresponds to:
275: \begin{equation}
276: f(\tau,\lambda)=\frac{1}{a} \frac{(\tau-\tau_{min})^{(1-a)/a}}{(\tau_{max}-\tau_{min})^{1/a}}.
277: \end{equation}
278: To calculate the residual intensity, we substitute Eq. (13) in Eq. (10) and
279: carry out the integration. The result is:
280: \begin{equation}
281: I(\lambda)=\frac{1}{a} \frac{e^{-\tau_{min}}}{(\tau_{max}-\tau_{min})^{1/a}} \Gamma(1/a)P(1/a, \tau_{max}-\tau_{min}),
282: \end{equation}
283: where $\Gamma$ and $P$ are the complete and incomplete Gamma functions,
284: respectively. It is important to keep in mind that, in principle, there
285: exist different values of $\tau_{max}$, $\tau_{min}$, and $a$
286: at every $\lambda$. Given a specific optical depth spatial
287: distribution (Eq. 11), Eq. (14) gives the residual intensity at each
288: wavelength across an observed absorption line.
289:
290: \subsection{Ellipse Distribution}
291: We will refer to the second optical depth spatial distribution as
292: the ``Ellipse''. It can be expressed mathematically as:
293: \begin{equation}
294: \frac{x^2}{b^2}+\frac{(\tau-\tau_{min})^2}{(\tau_{max}-\tau_{min})^2}=1,
295: \end{equation}
296: where $\tau_{max}$ ($\tau_{min}$) are the maximum (minimum) optical depths with
297: ($\tau_{max}-\tau_{min}$) being the semi-major axis of the ellipse, while
298: $b$ is its the semi-minor axis. We show in Figure 2 examples
299: for three different $b$ values. As before, the optical depths and $b$ are, in principle,
300: functions
of wavelength. The Ellipse is similar to the HPC model
301: if $b<1$, with $b$ playing a role similar to that
302: of $C_f$. The fraction of the area covered by optical depths
303: between $\tau$ and $\tau+d\tau$ is:
304: \begin{equation}
305: dx=-\frac{b}{(\tau_{max}-\tau_{min})}\frac{(\tau-\tau_{min})d\tau}{\sqrt{(\tau_{max}-\tau_{min})^2-(\tau-\tau_{min})^2}},
306: \end{equation}
307: where the minus sign only indicates that the
308: optical depth is decreasing with increasing $x$ (see Figure 2). With this we have:
309: \begin{equation}
310: f(\tau,\lambda)=\frac{b}{(\tau_{max}-\tau_{min})}\frac{(\tau-\tau_{min})}{\sqrt{(\tau_{max}-\tau_{min})^2-(\tau-\tau_{min})^2}}.
311: \end{equation}
312: Following the procedure outlined above, the residual intensity
313: for $b<1$ is:
314: \begin{equation}
315: I(\lambda)=(1-b)+\frac{b}{(\tau_{max}-\tau_{min})} \int_{\tau_{min}}^{\tau_{max}} \frac{(\tau-\tau_{min})~e^{-\tau}}{\sqrt{(\tau_{max}-\tau_{min})^2-(\tau-\tau_{min})^2}}~d\tau.
316: \end{equation}
317: For $b \ge 1$, we have:
318: \begin{equation}
319: I(\lambda)=\frac{b}{(\tau_{max}-\tau_{min})} \int_{\tau_{m}}^{\tau_{max}} \frac{(\tau-\tau_{min})~e^{-\tau}}{\sqrt{(\tau_{max}-\tau_{min})^2-(\tau-\tau_{min})^2}}~d\tau,
320: \end{equation}
321: where $\tau_m=\tau_{min}+\frac{(\tau_{max}-\tau_{min})}{b} \sqrt{b^2-1}$.
322: For the $b \ge 1$ case, $\tau_m$ (not $\tau_{min}$) is the actual
323: minimum optical depth realized in the absorber (the same also applies
324: for the Gaussian distribution below). These integrals will
325: have to be solved numerically at every $\lambda$ given $b$, $\tau_{max}$,
326: and $\tau_{min}$.
327:
328: \subsection{Gaussian Distribution}
329: We use a Gaussian as a third example of an optical depth distribution:
330: \begin{equation}
331: \tau=(\tau_{max}-\tau_{min})~e^{-\frac{x^2}{2\sigma^2}}+\tau_{min},
332: \end{equation}
333: where $\sigma$ is the standard deviation of the Gaussian function
334: (Zombeck 1990). This functional form can describe cases of a small
335: percentage of the maximum optical depth covering a large fraction
336: of the projected area of the continuum source. For instance,
337: if $\sigma \lesssim 1/3$ and $\tau_{min}=0$ then
338: $\tau \lesssim 0.01\tau_{max}$ over $\gtrsim (1-3\sigma)$
339: the projected area of the emitter.
340: Distributions for three values of $\sigma$ are shown in Fig. 3.
341: The covered area is:
342: \begin{equation}
343: dx=-\frac{\sigma}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{d\tau}{(\tau-\tau_{min})\sqrt{\ln\frac{\tau_{max}-\tau_{min}}{\tau-\tau_{min}}}},
344: \end{equation}
345: where the minus sign is merely due to the
346: arbitrary parameterization (see Figure 3). This area fraction corresponds to:
347: \begin{equation}
348: f(\tau, \lambda)=\frac{\sigma}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{1}{(\tau-\tau_{min})\sqrt{\ln\frac{\tau_{max}-\tau_{min}}{\tau-\tau_{min}}}}.
349: \end{equation}
350: Using the procedure outlined above, we evaluate the residual intensity:
351: \begin{equation}
352: I(\lambda)=\frac{\sigma}{\sqrt 2}~\int_{\tau_m}^{\tau_{max}} \frac{e^{-\tau}~d\tau}{(\tau-\tau_{min})~\sqrt{\ln~\frac{\tau_{max}-\tau_{min}}{\tau-\tau_{min}}}},
353: \end{equation}
354: where $\tau_m=(\tau_{max}-\tau_{min})~e^{-1/2\sigma^2}+\tau_{min}$.
355: It is important to keep in mind that $\tau_m$ is the minimum
356: optical depth achieved by the this distribution.
357: Given $\sigma, \tau_{max}$, and $\tau_{min}$ , we can numerically
358: compute the integral in Eq. (23) to calculate $I(\lambda)$.
359:
360:
361: \section{Comparisons}
362: In this section, we compare the IPC models to the HPC case as follows.
363: We compute the absorption line intensities and spatially averaged optical
364: depths for different values of $\tau_{min}$, $\tau_{max}$ and the
365: shape parameters, $a$, $b$, and $\sigma$, for each of the three IPC
366: distribution functions described above. We use intensities computed
367: for doublets having a $2 : 1$ optical depth ratio to derive
368: the coverage fraction and optical depth assuming HPC, based on
369: Equations $3-6$ in \S1. The spatially-averaged optical depth,
370: $\tau_{avg}$, for the stronger line in the doublet is:
371: \begin{equation}
372: \tau_{avg}=\frac{\int^1_0 \tau~dx}{\int^1_0 dx}=\int^1_0 \tau~dx.
373: \end{equation}
374: For the powerlaw distribution, this quantity is:
375: \begin{equation}
376: \tau_{avg}^{Powerlaw}=\frac{\tau_{max}+a~\tau_{min}}{1+a},
377: \end{equation}
378: while for the Ellipse ($b<1$) it is:
379: \begin{equation}
380: \tau_{avg}^{Ellipse}=b~\tau_{min}+\frac{\pi}{4}~b~(\tau_{max}-\tau_{min}),
381: \end{equation}
382: and for $b \gtrsim 1$:
383: \begin{equation}
384: \tau_{avg}^{Ellipse}=\tau_{min}+\frac{\tau_{max}}{b}~\left(\frac{\sqrt{b^2-1}}{2}+\frac{b^2}{2}~sin^{-1}\frac{1}{b}\right),
385: \end{equation}
386: and for the Gaussian distribution
387: \begin{equation}
388: \tau_{avg}^{Gauss}=1.251~\sigma~(\tau_{max}-\tau_{min})~{\rm erf}(0.707/\sigma)+\tau_{min},
389: \end{equation}
390: where ``erf'' is the Error Function.
391: For the HPC, the spatially averaged optical depth
392: is simply:
393: \begin{equation}
394: \tau_{avg}^{HPC}=C_f~\tau^{HPC},
395: \end{equation}
396: where $\tau^{HPC}$ is the same as $\tau_s$ in Eq. (6).
397: We plot contour levels, assuming different IPC models, of
398: $\tau_{avg}^{IPC}/\tau_{avg}^{HPC}$
399: in Figures 4, 5, and 6 for a set of $a$'s, $b$'s, and $\sigma$'s, with
400: $\tau_{max}$ taking values between 0.5 and 15 and $\tau_{min} \le \tau_{max}$.
401: We do not plot values for $\tau_{min} > 5$ because the IPC distributions
402: would describe an opaque slab with complete coverage (or opaque
403: partial coverage for the $b < 1$ Ellipse distribution).
404: The result would be nearly saturated absorption troughs,
405: and the method for deriving optical depths from the ratio of
406: these troughs would fail.
407:
408: Notice that a small powerlaw index mimics complete coverage while a
409: large one mimics partial coverage (Fig. 1). For the Ellipse and the
410: Gaussian distributions the situation with $b$ and $\sigma$, respectively,
411: is reversed. (Small values of $b$ and $\sigma$ simulate partial coverage,
412: Figs. 2 and 3). A quick glance at Figures 4, 5, and 6 shows that the
413: column densities implied by the HPC doublet analysis are comparable
414: to the average column densities in the IPC distributions used to
415: synthesize the ``observed'' lines. Notice that, in all cases, the HPC
416: analysis returns precisely the optical depths values of the input IPC
417: distribution
418: when $\tau_{max}=\tau_{min}$. Therefore, the dashed diagonal line
419: corresponds to the ratio being $\tau^{IPC}_{avg}/\tau^{HPC}_{avg}=1.0$.
420: The HPC models also asymptotically approach the IPC case for small values
421: of $a$ and large values of $b$ and $\sigma$, as is apparent from Figures.
422: 1, 2, and 3. In these cases, all of the IPC models actually resemble
423: complete homogeneous coverage. An interesting situation occurs for the
424: Ellipse distribution. When the semi-minor axis is less than 1, this HPC
425: model becomes very similar to the IPC, especially for
426: $\tau_{min} \approx \tau_{max}$ (Figs. 2 and 5).
427:
428: The contours in Figures 4, 5, and 6 run more or less parallel to the
429: dashed diagonal line. Qualitatively, why do the contours behave the way they do? To answer this
430: question, choose any IPC model and pick the plot corresponding to some specific $a$, $b$, or $\sigma$,
431: as the case might be. At a particular $\tau_{max}$, as $\tau_{min}$ increases the distribution
432: shape (Figs. $1-3$) begins more and more to resemble that of a homogeneously, completely covering
433: cloud for the Gaussian and powerlaw distributions, or a homogeneous partial coverage for the Ellipse.
434: In either case, in terms of average optical depths, the HPC output is nearly identical to the IPC input,
435: and hence the ratio decreases from its maximum value when $\tau_{min}=0$ to unity as $\tau_{min}$
436: approachs $\tau_{max}$. This decrease is most rapid for peaked optical depth distributions, and hence the
437: closely spaced contours. Sharply peaked distributions also lead to the largest
438: differences between the ionic column densities in the IPC distribution and those derived under the HPC
439: assumption. The decrease in ratio is less dramatic for optical depth distributions that more uniformly
440: cover the source, and hence lead to contours that are close to unity, such as all the Ellipse clouds,
441: the large $\sigma$ Gaussians, and the small
442: $a$ powerlaws. As a matter of fact, the Ellipse clouds are always very similar to the HPC.
443:
444: The HPC results differ most dramatically from the IPC input when the IPC distribution
445: is sharply peaked (large $a$ for the powerlaw or small $\sigma$ for the
446: Gaussian) and there is a transition across this distribution from very
447: optically thick ($\tau_{max} >> 1$) to optically thin
448: ($\tau_{min} \approx 0$). For example, the parameters $a=10$,
449: $\tau_{min}=0$, and $\tau_{max}=15$ in the powerlaw distribution (Eq. 11)
450: lead to a spatially-averaged optical depth of
451: $\tau_{avg}^{Powerlaw}=1.4$. Also $\sim$24\% of the source is covered by
452: regions having $\tau>1$. An HPC analysis applied to the
453: absorption doublets generated by this particular IPC distribution
454: yeilds a $C_f=0.29$, which, as
455: expected, is similar to the $\sim$24\% of the source covered by
456: $\tau>1$ gas in the actual distribution. The optical depths
457: inferred from the HPC analysis are $\tau^{HPC}=2.9$ for lines of sight
458: hitting the absorber, and zero elsewhere, implying a spatially-averaged
459: optical depth of $\tau_{avg}^{HPC}=0.84$. We show in Figs. 7, 8, and
460: 9 the results of similar calculations for the powerlaw, Ellipse,
461: and Gaussian distributions, respectively. The horizontal lines are
462: the values of the corresponding $\tau_{avg}^{IPC}$ and $\tau_{avg}^{HPC}$.
463:
464: It is not surprising that $\tau_{avg}^{HPC}$ in the
465: previous paragraph is less than $\tau_{avg}^{Powerlaw}$ in the actual
466: powerlaw distribution. The reason is that the absorption line
467: strength is not sensitive to the exact value of $\tau$ in regions where
468: $\tau$ is already $>>1$, e.g., on the right-hand side of Fig. 1a. For
469: example, if we keep the same $\tau(x)$ distribution but truncate
470: the peak at $\tau=10$ or even $\tau=5$, we would lower the value of
471: $\tau_{avg}^{Powerlaw}$ without significantly affecting the
472: absorption line strengths. Similarily, adding material (to increase
473: the optical depth) in regions where $\tau$ is already $>>1$ could
474: increase $\tau_{avg}^{Powerlaw}$ arbitrarily, but there would again
475: be now change in the amount of absorption as registered by the
476: absorption lines.
477:
478: The HPC analysis is remarkably accurate when applied to
479: optical depth distributions that do not contain sharp spikes, i.e.,
480: having areas with $\tau>>1$, because the absorption lines themselves
481: are not sensitive to optical depths in the $\tau>>1$ regions. Without
482: specific knowledge of the true shape of the optical depth distribution,
483: there is no prospect of using measured absorption lines to estimate
484: the amount of material (column density) that might be present in
485: very optically thick regions. However tighter constraints could
486: be obtained by using, not just
487: doublets with $2:1$ ratios, but multiplets and lines of more/less
488: abundant ions that span a much wider range in $\tau$.
489:
490: \section{Applications}
491:
492: The IPC models can also be applied to observed absorption line doublets
493: (or multiplets) to derive key parameters of the optical depth
494: distribution. To illustrate this, we use the HPC model, Eqs. (3) and (4) given
495: $C_f$ and $\tau_s$, to simulate ``observed'' residual intensities,
496: $I_s$ and $I_w$,
497: in doublet lines whose optical depths are in a $2 : 1$ ratio. Basically,
498: we follow the reverse approach of the previous section: we now assume
499: that the doublet created with the HPC model is the ``observed'' and
500: we solve for $\tau_{max}$ and $a$, $b$, or $\sigma$. (We fix
501: $\tau_{min}=0$, with a little loss of generality, to reduce the
502: number of unknowns in our equations). For every
503: functional form of IPC, we get two equations with two unknowns
504: (see Eqs. (14), (18), (19), and (23)), which we solve
505: numerically using Newton's method (Press et al. 1992). The
506: success of this approach hinges on providing a good initial guess.
507: We find that trial and error guesses at $\tau_{max}$ and the shape
508: parameter, guided by the input HPC values $C_f$ and $\tau^{HPC}$,
509: lead more quickly to the best solution. The implementation
510: of Newton's method also allowed us to confirm that the solutions arrived at
511: are unique and not local minima which the numerical
512: code converged to by mistake.
513:
514: The aim behind this exercise is to prove the feasibility of our
515: IPC models in solving simultaneously, just as in the HPC case,
516: for the optical depth and the ``shape'' parameter. We also
517: note paranthetically that one can arrive back at the HPC input
518: values if one uses the derived IPC parameters to simulate the residual
519: intensities and then apply the HPC doublet analysis.
520: This shows that the IPC doublet analysis we present in the
521: this section is reliable.
522: We test our method for a range of HPC parameters that would
523: reveal the representative
524: behavior of the solutions. Table 1 lists combinations of
525: $C_f$ and $\tau^{HPC}$, used as input, and corresponding
526: derived values of $\tau^{IPC}_{max}$, $a$, $b$, and $\sigma$. We chose
527: three values of $\tau^{HPC}=0.5,1.0,$ and $5.0$, to span the range
528: from optically thin to optically thick.
529: The average optical depths are be calculated using Eqs. (25),
530: (26), (27), (28), and (29).
531: For $C_f$ we chose 0.1, 0.5, and 0.9 to investigate the effects
532: of the degree of partial coverage on the resulting IPC solutions.
533:
534:
535: We compare the various quantities in Table 1.
536: It is interesting to see how very low coverage leads to very large
537: powerlaw indices and large derived values of $\tau_{max}$.
538: For low optical depths with HPC the resulting maximum optical depth
539: derived under the powerlaw IPC is about a factor of two larger. But the
540: optically thick case ($\tau^{HPC}=5.0$) with low coverage ($C_f=0.1$) is
541: much more extreme. We can understand this behavior because the
542: powerlaw distribution describes complete coverage. It therefore
543: strains to mimic a partial coverge situation with large $a$ values,
544: resulting in a large spike in $\tau(x)$. This spike dominates
545: $\tau_{avg}$, but it is purely an artifact of the functional form.
546: It shows that the powerlaw distribution IPC is completely unreliable
547: in this regime. One can always truncate the maximum optical depth value
548: at some very high value without affecting strength of the resulting
549: absorption lines.
550:
551: A quick glance at the Ellipse solutions, both in terms of
552: $\tau_{max}$ and $\tau_{avg}$, shows
553: that this IPC model is very similar to HPC (cf. previous section).
554: On the other hand, the Gaussian distribution behaves like a combination
555: of the the powerlaw, in terms of the peakedness, and the
556: Ellipse. The Gaussian, like the powerlaw, is based on complete
557: coverage. But the rapid decline in the Gaussian distribution
558: from the core to the wings (Fig. 3) is better able to mimic
559: partial coverage. Nonetheless, like the powerlaw case, optically
560: thick clouds with small coverage fractions can lead to
561: solutions with artificially large spikes in the Gaussian
562: $\tau(x)$. We see that the derived average optical depths with the
563: powerlaw, Ellipse, and Gaussian distributions are comparable
564: to the average optical depth used to generate the HPC input,
565: with the exception of the optically thick case $\tau^{HPC} =5.0$.
566:
567: The doublet analysis provides a shape parameter and $\tau_{max}$.
568: But we are forced to assume a functional form that substantially
569: affects the results (Table 1). Working with multiplets
570: with ``n'' lines, or any combination of ``n'' lines whose
571: $\tau$'s can be reliably tied together, would provide
572: ``n'' equations and ``n'' unknowns and therefore ``n''
573: constraints on the two-dimensional optical depth
574: distribution. Such complicated procedure is, however,
575: beyond the scope of this paper.
576:
577: \section{Two-Dimensional Optical Depth Distributions}
578: We describe in this section a procedure to re-parameterize an arbitrary
579: two-dimenionsional optical depth distribution, $\tau(x,y)$, into a
580: one-dimensional function $\tau(x)$. We show that the simple functional
581: forms discussed above are relatively
582: successful at representing more realistic and complicated situations.
583: Our starting point is to create an arbitrary 2D optical depth
584: distribution. This 2D distribution, for the sake of definiteness
585: but with some loss of generality, is the surface
586: made from a collection of 36 overlapping Gaussian functions
587: scattered over a plane (Fig. 10). The positions and heights
588: of the Gaussian functions are chosen randomly, with numbers between
589: 0 and 1 for the abscissae/ordinates and between 0 and 3 for
590: the heights (peak optical depths for the individual Gaussians).
591: We pick the same
592: Gaussian width, $\sigma =0.06$, for all the functions so as
593: not to get very narrow or very wide spatial profiles.
594: The outcome of this process
595: is a 2D optical depth distribution across the surface of
596: an emitter, which we assume to be emitting uniformly.
597: The maximum optical depth in this distribution is
598: $\tau_{max}=6.42$, the minimum optical depth is
599: $\tau_{min}=0.0018$, and the average is $\tau_{avg}=1.17$.
600:
601: We then calculate the fraction of the area covered by
602: optical depths between $\tau$ and $\tau+d\tau$. We
603: divide the surface into a grid of 2D cells and
604: count the number of cells with optical
605: depths between $\tau$ and $\tau+d\tau$. This
606: gives us $f^{2D}(\tau, \lambda)$ for our 2D distribution.
607: It is now straightforward to integrate
608: this function (recall $dx=(f(\tau,\lambda)d\tau)$)
609: to get the equivalent 1D optical depth distribution
610: $\tau(x)$. We show the results in Figure. 11 (solid line).
611:
612: To calculate the residual doublet (with $2:1$ ratio)
613: line intensities from such a distribution we numerically
614: substitute $f^{2D}(\tau, \lambda)$ in Eq. (10) and
615: evaluate the integral. This gives us two ``observed''
616: residual intensities for the doublet lines. We
617: then apply our HPC and IPC analyses to this ``observed''
618: doublet to solve for the shape parameters and $\tau_{max}$,
619: putting $\tau_{min}=0$ in the IPC case. We
620: show the results in Table 2. The average optical depths
621: calculated with all of the HPC and IPC models are
622: comparable to the average optical depth in the
623: original 2D distribution. This shows that the
624: relatively simple functional forms we discussed in
625: this paper provide practical representations to
626: describe a complicated optical depth distribution.
627:
628:
629: We plot the corresponding
630: HPC and IPC optical depth distributions in Figure 11
631: for comparison with the equivalent 1D distribution.
632: It is easy to see that the powerlaw and
633: Gaussian functional forms are the closest to the
634: re-parameterized 1D distribution, which was created
635: from overlapping Gaussians. This re-parameterized
636: 1D function is more sharply peaked than the 1D IPC
637: powerlaw that we derive from the doublet analysis.
638: This shows that spikes in $\tau(x)$ can arise
639: naturally from ``real'' 2D distributions, even if those
640: distributions are based on a very simple, non-spikey
641: function (a Gaussian). The ``spikeness'' in the
642: 1D re-parameterization (Fig. 11) is the result of having few
643: peaks in the 2D distribution (Fig. 10).
644:
645:
646:
647:
648:
649: \section{Conclusions}
650: Understanding the effects of the spatial distribution of ions
651: in an absorbing region is essential to deciphering the
652: physical and chemical states of the absorber.
653: Our investigations of the effects of the spatial distribution of ions in an
654: absorbing region on the derived column densities reveal a number of
655: interesting
656: properties. So long as an absorbing region is not optically thick
657: we find that the average optical
658: depth of the input distribution, i.e., the one used to generate
659: the ``observed'' residual intensities in an absorption
660: doublet, will lead to a comparable, to within a factor of less than
661: 1.5, average optical depth
662: derived from a doublet analysis assuming a different optical
663: depth distribution. Figures 4, 5, and 6 along with Tables 1
664: and 2 atest to this. In Figures 4, 5, and 6 we start with
665: an IPC distribution, $\tau_{max}$, $\tau_{min}$, and the appropriate
666: shape parameter, and then derive $\tau^{HPC}$ and $C_f$ for the HPC case.
667: We plot the ratio of the average optical depths,
668: $\tau_{avg}^{IPC}/\tau_{avg}^{HPC}$, as contours,
669: whose values are always less than $\sim 1.6$ in the part of parameter
670: space we study.
671:
672: Table 1 shows the results of the reverse approach.
673: We start by simulating an absorption doublet using an HPC distribution
674: as input and use an IPC distribution to calculate the attributes
675: of the absorbing region. It is easy to see that
676: $\tau_{avg}^{HPC}\approx \tau_{avg}^{IPC}$, except in the
677: optically thick regime. We also should point out that we can
678: get back to the initial HPC parameters from the IPC solutions by
679: following the same approach employed of Figures 5, 6, and 7.
680: This symmetry proves that our IPC doublet analysis method
681: is reliable. We have extended the work of de Kool et al. (2002)
682: to show how, given a functional form in the IPC analysis,
683: we can use observed lines (e.g., doublets) to infer key
684: parameters about the inhomogeneous optical depth and
685: column density distributions.
686:
687: We go a step further in \S 5 (Table 2). We start with an
688: arbitrary 2D optical depth distribution and calculate the resulting doublet
689: residual intensities, which we then analyze with the HPC and IPC
690: models. The last column in Table 2 shows that the resulting average
691: optical depths are almost identical to the average optical
692: depth of the initial 2D distribution. All this discussion
693: leads us to an important conclusion: Our investigation shows
694: that the spatial distribution of ions has a minimal effect on the
695: computed average column density. Given the fact that spikes could arise
696: from not so exotic 2D distributions (Figs. 10 and 11) and
697: that the re-parameterized 1D function is closest to a
698: powerlaw (Fig. 11), we conclude that the IPC powerlaw doublet
699: analysis should yield more representative parameters
700: of the absorbing line region. Solving Eq. (14) for a doublet that
701: provides two equations
702: in two unknowns ($\tau_{max}$, $a$, with $\tau_{min}=0$),
703: is relatively easy. In a future paper we will apply our
704: methods to observed quasar absorption lines and present the numerical
705: codes that implement our IPC doublet analysis.
706:
707: \noindent {\it Acknowledgements:} We wish to acknowledge support
708: through NSF grant AST99-84040.
709:
710: \begin{references}
711: \reference{} Barlow, T. A., Hamann, F., \& Sargent, W. L. W. 1997,
712: in ASP Conf. Series 128, Mass Ejections from AGN, ed. R. Weymann,
713: I. Shlosman, \& N. Arav (San Francisco: ASP), 13
714: \reference{} de Kool, M., Korista, K. T., \& Arav, N. 2002, \apj,
715: 580, 54
716: \reference{} Gabel, J. R., et al. 2003, ApJ, in press
717: \reference{} Ganguly, R., Eracleous, M., Charlton, J. C., Churchill,
718: C. W. 1999, \aj, 117, 2594
719: \reference{} Hamann, F., Barlow, T. A., Junkkarinen, V., \& Burbidge,
720: E. M. 1997, \apj, 478, 80
721: \reference{} Hamann, F., \& Ferland, G. 1999, \araa, 37, 487
722: \reference{} Hamann, F., Barlow, T. A., Chaffee, F. C., Foltz, C. B.,
723: \& Weymann, R. J. 2001, \apj, 550, 142
724: \reference{} Petitjean, P., Rauch, M., \& Carswell, R. F. 1994, \aap,
725: 291, 29
726: \reference{} Press, W. H., Teukolsky, S. A., Vetterlin, W. T., \&
727: Flannery, B. P. 1992, Numerical Recipes in Fortran: The Art of
728: Scientific Computing, Second Edition,
729: (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press)
730: \reference{} Verner, D. A., Barthel, P. D., \& Tytler, D. 1994,
731: \aaps, 108, 287
732: \reference{} Wampler, E. F., Chugai, N. N., \& Petitjean, P. 1995,
733: \apj, 443, 586
734: \reference{} Zombek, M. V. 1990, Handbook of Astronomy and Astrophysics,
735: Second Edition (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press)
736: \end{references}
737:
738:
739: \begin{figure}
740: \centerline{
741: \psfig{figure=f1.eps}
742: }
743: \caption{Powerlaw distribution with $\tau_{min}=0.1~\tau_{max}$ $(a)$
744: and $\tau_{min}=0.5~\tau_{max}$ $(b)$. Solid, dotted, and
745: dashed lines for $a=0.1, 1.0,$ and 10, respectively.}
746: \end{figure}
747:
748:
749: \begin{figure}
750: \centerline{
751: \psfig{figure=f2.eps}
752: }
753: \caption{Ellipse distribution with $\tau_{min}=0.1~\tau_{max}$ $(a)$
754: and $\tau_{min}=0.5~\tau_{max}$ $(b)$. Solid, dotted, and
755: dashed lines for $b=0.5, 1.0,$ and 1.5, respectively.}
756: \end{figure}
757:
758: \begin{figure}
759: \centerline{
760: \psfig{figure=f3.eps}
761: }
762: \caption{Gaussian distribution with $\tau_{min}=0.1~\tau_{max}$ $(a)$
763: and $\tau_{min}=0.5~\tau_{max}$ $(b)$. Solid, dotted, and
764: dashed lines for $\sigma=0.1, 0.33,$ and 1.0, respectively.}
765: \end{figure}
766:
767: \begin{figure}
768: \centerline{
769: \psfig{figure=f4.eps}
770: }
771: \caption{Powerlaw Distribution vs. HPC. Contours show the ratio of
772: spatially-averaged optical depths calculated in the IPC model to that
773: computed under HPC assumptions, i.e., $\tau_{avg}^{IPC}/\tau_{avg}^{HPC}$.
774: The dashed curve indicates $\tau_{min}=\tau_{max}$, which also
775: corresponds to $\tau_{avg}^{IPC}/\tau_{avg}^{HPC}=1$, because in this
776: limit, the $\tau(x)$ distribution (Eq. 11) is homogeneous.}
777: \end{figure}
778:
779: \begin{figure}
780: \centerline{
781: \psfig{figure=f5.eps}
782: }
783: \caption{Same as Fig. 4 but for Ellipse Distribution vs. HPC. For
784: $b > 1.0$, IPC model is the same as homogeneous, complete coverage, and
785: hence the ratio of optical depths is always 1.}
786: \end{figure}
787:
788: \begin{figure}
789: \centerline{
790: \psfig{figure=f6.eps}
791: }
792: \caption{Same as Fig. 4 but for Gaussian Distribution vs. HPC.
793: For $\sigma > 0.8$, IPC model is the same as homogeneous, complete
794: coverage, and hence
795: the ratio of optical depths is always 1.}
796: \end{figure}
797:
798: \begin{figure}
799: \centerline{
800: \psfig{figure=f7.eps}
801: }
802: \caption{Powerlaw distribution for $a=3$ (solid curves)
803: with $\tau_{max}=5$ (top panel) and $\tau_{max}=15$ (bottom). The
804: dashed horizontal lines show the average optical depth,
805: $\tau_{avg}^{IPC}$, of these distributions. The dotted rectangles show
806: the HPC distributions of the optical depths, as derived from the
807: doublet analysis using the IPC distributions as input (see \S 3).
808: The horizontal dash-dotted lines mark the values of $\tau_{avg}^{HPC}$,
809: the average optical depths of the HPC distributions.
810: The plots were truncated at $\tau < \tau_{max}$
811: to aid in noticing the differences between the average optical depths.}
812: \end{figure}
813:
814: \begin{figure}
815: \centerline{
816: \psfig{figure=f8.eps}
817: }
818: \caption{Same as for Fig. 7 but for an Ellipse distribution ($b=0.5$)
819: with $\tau_{max}=2$ (top, a), and $\tau_{max}=5$ (bottom, b). We
820: chose lower optical depth values to avoid black troughs.}
821: \end{figure}
822:
823: \begin{figure}
824: \centerline{
825: \psfig{figure=f9.eps}
826: }
827: \caption{Same as for Fig. 7 but for an Gaussian distriubution
828: with $\sigma=0.2$ with $\tau_{max}=5$ (top, a), and
829: $\tau_{max}=15$ (bottom, b).}
830: \end{figure}
831:
832: \begin{figure}
833: \centerline{
834: \psfig{figure=f10.eps}
835: }
836: \caption{Two dimensional optical depth distribution synthesized from 36 overlapping
837: Gaussians.}
838: \end{figure}
839:
840: \begin{figure}
841: \centerline{
842: \psfig{figure=f11.eps}
843: }
844: \caption{The 1D re-parameterization (solid curve) of the 2D optical
845: depth distribution shown in Figure 10 is shown with the powerlaw
846: (dotted), Ellipse (dashed), Gaussian (dash-dotted), and HPC
847: (long dashed) distributions derived for the doublet analysis
848: in (\S 5).}
849: \end{figure}
850:
851:
852:
853: \begin{table}
854: \begin{center}
855: \title{\small \rm Table 1: IPC Solutions}
856: \vspace*{0.1in}
857: \begin{tabular}{cccc}
858: \tableline
859: \tableline
860: $C_f, \tau^{HPC}, \tau_{avg}^{HPC}$ & $a, \tau^{Powerlaw}_{max}, \tau_{avg}^{Powerlaw}$ & $b, \tau^{Ellipse}_{max}, \tau_{avg}^{Ellipse}$ & $\sigma, \tau^{Gaussian}_{max}, \tau_{avg}^{Gaussian}$ \\
861: \tableline
862: 0.1, 0.5, 0.05 &20.1, 1.1, 0.05&0.14, 0.4, 0.04&0.06, 0.67, 0.05 \\
863: 0.1, 1.0, 0.10 &22.1, 2.4, 0.10&0.10, 1.1, 0.09&0.05, 1.43, 0.09 \\
864: 0.1, 5.0, 0.50 &832, 3415, 4.10&0.10, 6.9, 0.54&0.04, 36.4, 1.82 \\
865: 0.5, 0.5, 0.25 &2.6, 0.9, 0.25 &0.70, 0.4, 0.22&0.29, 0.65, 0.24 \\
866: 0.5, 1.0, 0.50 &2.9, 2.0, 0.51 &0.55, 1.2, 0.52&0.27, 1.43, 0.48 \\
867: 0.5, 5.0, 2.50 &9.6, 444, 41.8 &0.51, 6.9, 2.76&0.18, 36.4, 8.19 \\
868: 0.9, 0.5, 0.45 &0.5, 0.7, 0.47 &1.18, 0.5, 0.46&0.54, 0.69, 0.44 \\
869: 0.9, 1.0, 0.90 &0.6, 1.4, 0.87 &1.00, 1.1, 0.86&0.66, 1.19, 0.85 \\
870: 0.9, 5.0, 4.50 &1.4, 20.4, 8.5 &0.91, 6.9, 4.90&0.33, 36.4, 15.0 \\
871: \tableline
872: \end{tabular}
873: \end{center}
874: \end{table}
875:
876:
877: \begin{table}
878: \begin{center}
879: \title{\small \rm Table 2: 2D Distribution \& HPC/IPC Models}
880: \vspace*{0.1in}
881: \begin{tabular}{cccc}
882: \tableline
883: \tableline
884: Model & Geometry& $\tau_{max}$ & $\tau_{avg}$ \\
885: \tableline
886: 2D & --- & 6.42 & 1.17 \\
887: HPC & 0.66 & 1.60 & 1.06 \\
888: Powerlaw& 1.86 & 3.18 & 1.11 \\
889: Ellipse & 0.70 & 1.90 & 1.05 \\
890: Gaussian& 0.34 & 2.54 & 1.08 \\
891:
892: \tableline
893: \end{tabular}
894: \end{center}
895: \end{table}
896:
897:
898:
899: \end{document}
900: