Instruction: Write an abstract for the following acadamic paper.

Input:
Paper: we have recorded the flight of a fly during take off and landing using digital high speed photography . it is shown that the dynamics of flexible wings are different for these procedures . during this observation fly flew freely in a big box and it was not tethered .
Abstract: in this fluid dynamics video , we demonstrated take off and landing of a fly . the deformation of wings is in focus in this video .

Paper: in recent years , a considerable amount of research has focused on the study of graph structures arising from technological , biological and sociological systems . graphs are the tool of choice in modeling such systems since the latter are typically described as a set of pairwise interactions . important examples of such datasets are the internet graph ( vertices are routers , edges correspond to physical links ) , the web graph ( vertices are web pages , edges correspond to hyperlinks ) , social networks ( vertices are humans , edges correspond to friendships ) , information networks like facebook and linkedin ( vertices are accounts , edges correspond to online friendships ) , biological networks ( vertices are proteins , edges correspond to protein interactions ) , math collaboration network ( vertices are mathematicians , edges correspond to collaborations ) and many more .    towards the end of the 90s , a series of papers observed that the classic models of random graphs introduced by erds and rnyi @xcite and gilbert @xcite did not explain the empirical properties of real - world networks @xcite . typical properties of such networks include skewed degree distributions @xcite , large clustering coefficients @xcite and small average distances @xcite , a phenomenon typically referred to as `` small worlds '' . skewed degree distributions have widely been modeled as power laws : the proportion of vertices of a given degree follows an approximate inverse power law , i.e. , the proportion of vertices of degree k is approximately @xmath14 . understanding the properties of real world networks has attracted considerable research interest in the recent years @xcite . a large body of work has focused on finding models which generate graphs which mimick real world networks . most of the existing work on network formation models falls into the stochastic and the strategic categories . kronecker graphs @xcite , the cooper - frieze model for the web graph @xcite , the aiello - chung - lu model @xcite , protean graphs @xcite and numerous other models belong to the former category . the strategic approach has its origins in the work of boorman @xcite , aumann @xcite and aumann and myerson @xcite and a variety of models fall into this category , e.g. , the fabrikant - koutsoupias - papadimitriou model @xcite . despite the large amount of work on models which generate power law graphs , a considerably smaller amount of work has focused on generative models for planar graphs . planar graphs have been studied mainly in the context of transportation networks and occur in numerous real - world problems : modelling city streets @xcite , crowd simulations @xcite , river networks , railway and road maps printed circuits , chemical molecules , see also @xcite and references therein . in this work , we prove fundamental properties of random apollonian networks ( rans ) @xcite , a popular model of planar graphs with power law properties @xcite . we use the symbol @xmath15 to denote the random graph at time @xmath2 . the details of the model are exposed in section  [ sec : ran ] . specifically our main results are the following theorems :    let @xmath16 be the @xmath0 highest degrees of the random apollonian network @xmath15 at time @xmath2 where @xmath0 is a fixed positive integer . also , let @xmath17 be a function such that @xmath4 as @xmath5 . then _ whp _ @xmath18    and for @xmath19    @xmath20 [ thrm : thrm1 ]    the growing function @xmath17 can not be removed , see @xcite . using theorem  [ thrm : thrm1 ] we relate the highest @xmath0 degrees and eigevalues . let @xmath21 be the largest @xmath0 eigenvalues of the adjacency matrix of @xmath15 . then _ whp _ @xmath22 [ thrm : thrm2 ]    also , we prove the following theorem for the diameter .    the diameter @xmath10 of @xmath15 satisfies in probability @xmath23 where @xmath12 is the unique solution greater than 1 of the equation @xmath13 . [ thrm : ternary ]    the outline of the paper is as follows : in section  [ sec : ran ] we describe the model and discuss existing work on rans . in sections [ sec : degree ] and  [ sec : eigen ] we prove theorems  [ thrm : thrm1 ] and  [ thrm : thrm2 ] respectively . in section  [ sec : diameter ] we give a simple proof for the asymptotic growth of the diameter and prove theorem  [ thrm : ternary ] . finally in section  [ sec : waiting ] we investigate another property of the model . finally , in section  [ sec : concl ] we conclude by proposing several problems for future work . apollonius of perga was a greek geometer and astronomer noted for his writings on conic sections . apollonius introduced the problem of space filling packing of spheres which in its classical solution , the apollonian packing see @xcite for remarkable properties of apollonian circles- , exhibits a power law behavior . specifically , the circle size distribution follows a power law with exponent of about 1.3 @xcite . apollonian networks ( ans ) were introduced in @xcite and independently in @xcite . zhou et al . @xcite introduced the random apollonian networks ( rans ) and gave formulae for their order , size , degree distribution ( using heuristic arguments ) , clustering coefficient and diameter . high dimensional rans were introduced in @xcite . the degree distribution of rans was shown to follow a power law in @xcite . other properties have also been analyzed , e.g. , average distance of two vertices @xcite , properties of the connectivity profile @xcite . zhou et al . @xcite proposed a simple rule that generates a random two - dimensional apollonian networks with very large clustering coefficient . rans are planar 3-trees , a special case of random @xmath0-trees @xcite . the general result of the degree distribution of random @xmath0-trees was proved by cooper & uehara and gao @xcite . in rans in contrast to the general model of random @xmath0 trees the random @xmath0 clique chosen at each step has never previously been selected . for example in the two dimensional case any chosen triangular face is being subdivided into three new triangular faces by connecting the incoming vertex to the vertices of the boundary . random @xmath0-trees due to their power law properties have been proposed as a model for complex networks , see , e.g. , @xcite and references therein . recently , a variant of @xmath0-trees , namely ordered increasing @xmath0-trees has been proposed and analyzed in @xcite . an example of a two dimensional ran is shown in figure  [ fig : fig1 ] . the ran generator takes as input a parameter @xmath24 equal to the number of iterations the algorithm will perform and runs as follows :    * let @xmath25 be a triangle @xmath26 embedded on the plane , e.g. , as an equilateral triangle . * _ for _ @xmath27 to @xmath24 : * * sample a face @xmath28 of the planar graph @xmath29 uniformly at random . * * insert the vertex @xmath30 inside this face ( e.g. , in the barycenter of the corresponding triangle ) and draw the three edges @xmath31 , @xmath32,@xmath33 , e.g. , as straight lines . it s worth pointing out why we expect this model to yield a power law degree distribution : consider any vertex @xmath34 at some time @xmath2 . vertex @xmath34 sees a wheel graph around it ( except for vertices 1,2,3 who see a wheel modulo one edge ) as figure  [ fig : fig2 ] shows . since we pick a face uniformly at random the probability that @xmath34 increases its degree by 1 is ( roughly ) proportional to its degree . therefore , we expect this process to result in a graph , which is obviously planar , and which _ whp _   occurs with high probability _ whp _  if @xmath35}}=1 $ ] . ] has properties similar to those generated by a preferential attachment process @xcite . therefore , it should not come as a surprise that existing techniques developed in the context of preferential attachment models can be adapted to solve problems concerning the structure of random apollonian networks . finally , we shall make use of the following formulae for the number of vertices ( @xmath36 ) , edges ( @xmath37 ) and faces ( @xmath38 ) at time @xmath2 in a ran @xmath15 : @xmath39 note that a ran is a maximal planar graph since for any planar graph @xmath40 . we decompose the proof of theorem  [ thrm : thrm1 ] into several lemmas which we prove in the following . the proof of theorem  [ thrm : thrm1 ] follows from lemmas  [ lem : lemma2 ] ,  [ lem : lemma3 ] ,  [ lem : lemma4 ] ,  [ lem : lemma5 ] ,  [ lem : lemma6 ] . we partition the vertices into three sets : those added before @xmath41 , before @xmath42 and after @xmath42 where @xmath43 and @xmath44 . we define a supernode to be a collection of vertices and the degree of the supernode the sum of the degrees of its vertices . let @xmath45 denote the degree of vertex @xmath46 at time @xmath2 . and let @xmath47denote the rising factorial function . then , for any positive integer @xmath0    @xmath48 } \leq \frac { ( k+2)!}{2 } \big ( \frac{2t}{s } \big)^{\frac{k}{2}}. \label{eq : rising}\ ] ]    [ lem : lemma1 ]    we distinguish two types of vertices . this analysis will be omitted in the subsequent lemmas . ] since as it can also be seen in figure  [ fig : fig2] the three initial vertices @xmath49 have one face less than their degree whereas all other vertices have degree equal to the number of faces . + note that @xmath50 and that @xmath51 . by conditioning successively we obtain    @xmath52 }                 & = { { \mathbb e}\left [ { { { \mathbb e}\left [ { d_t(s)^{(k ) } | d_{t-1}(s)}\right ] } } \right]}\\                                     & = { { \mathbb e}\left [ { ( d_{t-1}(s))^{(k ) } \big ( 1-\frac{d_{t-1}(s)}{2t-1 } \big ) +   ( d_{t-1}(s)+1)^{(k ) } \frac{d_{t-1}(s)}{2t-1}}\right ] } \\                                      & =   { { \mathbb e}\left [ {   ( d_{t-1}(s))^{(k ) } \big ( 1-\frac{d_{t-1}(s)}{2t-1 } \big ) + ( d_{t-1}(s))^{(k ) } \frac{d_{t-1}(s)+k}{d_{t-1}(s ) } \frac{d_{t-1}(s)}{2t-1}}\right]}\\                                     & =   { { \mathbb e}\left [ { ( d_{t-1}(s))^{(k)}}\right]}\big ( 1+\frac{k}{2t-1 } \big ) = ... = 3^{(k ) } \prod_{t'=s+1}^t ( 1+\frac{k}{2t'-1 } ) \\                                     & \leq   3^{(k ) }   \exp{\big ( \sum_{t'=s+1}^t \frac{k}{2t'-1 } \big ) } \leq 3^{(k ) } \exp { \big ( k \int_{s}^{t } \ ! \frac{\mathrm{d}x}{2x-1 }    \ ,    \big ) }   \\                                      & \leq \frac{(k+2)!}{2 } \exp { \big ( k \log { \frac{2t-1}{2s-1 } } \big ) } \leq \frac { ( k+2)!}{2 } \big ( \frac{2t}{s } \big)^{\frac{k}{2}}. \end{aligned}\ ] ]     + note that initially the degree of any such vertex is 2 . for any @xmath53    @xmath52 }                 & = { { \mathbb e}\left [ { { { \mathbb e}\left [ { d_t(s)^{(k ) } | d_{t-1}(s)}\right ] } } \right]}\\                                     & = { { \mathbb e}\left [ { ( d_{t-1}(s))^{(k ) } \big ( 1-\frac{d_{t-1}(s)-1}{2t-1 } \big ) +   ( d_{t-1}(s)+1)^{(k ) } \frac{d_{t-1}(s)-1}{2t-1 } } \right]}\\                                      & =   { { \mathbb e}\left [ { ( d_{t-1}(s))^{(k ) } \big ( 1+\frac{k}{2t-1 } \big ) - ( d_{t-1}(s))^{(k ) } \frac{k}{(2t-1)d_{t-1}(s ) }   } \right]}\\                                     & \leq { { \mathbb e}\left [ { ( d_{t-1}(s))^{(k)}}\right ] } \big ( 1+\frac{k}{2t-1 } \big ) \leq \ldots \leq \frac { ( k+2)!}{2 } \big ( \frac{2t}{s } \big)^{\frac{k}{2}}.\end{aligned}\ ] ]    the degree @xmath54 of the supernode @xmath55 of vertices added before time @xmath41 is at least @xmath56 _ whp _  . [ lem : lemma2 ]    we consider a modified process @xmath57 coupled with the ran process , see also figure  [ fig : fig3 ] . specifically , let @xmath58 be the modified degree of the supernode in the modified process @xmath57 which is defined as follows : for any type of insertion in the original ran process note there exist three types of insertions with respect to how the degree @xmath54 of the supernode ( black circle ) gets affected , see also figure  [ fig : fig3] @xmath58 increases by 1 . we also define @xmath59 . note that @xmath60 for all @xmath61 . let @xmath62 and @xmath63}}$ ] . the following technical claim is proved in the appendix  [ sec : appendix ] . @xmath64 [ claim : lemma2 ] let @xmath65 denote the event that the supernode consisting of the first @xmath41 vertices has degree @xmath58 in the modified process @xmath57 less than @xmath56 . note that since @xmath66 it suffices to prove that @xmath67 } } =   o(1)$ ] . using claim  [ claim : lemma2 ] we obtain    @xmath68 } } & \leq \sum_{r=0}^ { t_0^{1/4}\sqrt{t } -(6t_0 + 6 ) } { r+6t_0 + 5 \choose 6t_0 + 5 }   \big(\frac{2t_0 + 3}{2t+1}\big)^{3t_0 + 3 } e^{-\frac{3}{2}-2t_0+\frac{2t_0^{1/4}}{3 } } \\ & \leq t_0^{1/4}t^{1/2 } \frac{\big ( t_0^{1/4}t^{1/2 } \big)^{6t_0 + 5}}{(6t_0 + 5 ) ! } \big(\frac{2t_0 + 3}{2t+1}\big)^{3t_0 + 3 } e^{-\frac{3}{2}-2t_0+\frac{2t_0^{1/4}}{3 } } \\   & \leq \big ( \frac{t}{2t+1 } \big)^{3t_0 + 3 }   \frac{t_0^{3t_0/2 + 3/2 } ( 2t_0 + 3)^{3t_0 + 3}}{(6t_0 + 5)^{6t_0 + 5 } } e^{4t_0 + 7/2 + 2/3 t_0^{1/4}}\\ & \leq 2^{-(3t_0 + 3 ) } \frac{e^{4t_0 + 7/2 + 2/3 t_0^{1/4}}}{(6t_0 + 5)^{\tfrac{3}{2}t_0+\tfrac{1}{2 } } }   = o(1).\end{aligned}\ ] ]    no vertex added after @xmath42 has degree exceeding @xmath69 _ whp _  . [ lem : lemma3 ]    let @xmath70 denote the event that some vertex added after @xmath42 has degree exceeding @xmath69 . we use a union bound , a third moment argument and lemma  [ lem : lemma1 ] to prove that @xmath71}}=o(1)$ ] . specifically    @xmath72 } } & \leq   \sum_{s = t_1}^t { { { \bf{pr}}\left[{d_t(s ) \geq t_0^{-2}t^{1/2}}\right ] } } = \sum_{s = t_1}^t { { { \bf{pr}}\left[{d_t(s)^{(3 ) } \geq ( t_0^{-2}t^{1/2})^{(3)}}\right ] } } \\                        & \leq   t_0^{6}t^{-3/2 } \sum_{s = t_1}^t { { \mathbb e}\left[{d_t(s)^{(3)}}\right ] } \leq 5!\sqrt{2 } t_0 ^ 6 \sum_{s = t_1}^t s^{-3/2 }             \leq 5!2\sqrt{2 } t_0 ^ 6 t_1^{-1/2 } = o(1 ) . \end{aligned}\ ] ]    no vertex added before @xmath42 has degree exceeding @xmath73 _ whp _  . [ lem : lemma4 ]    let @xmath74 denote the event that some vertex added before @xmath42 has degree exceeding @xmath73 . we use again a third moment argument and lemma  [ lem : lemma1 ] to prove that @xmath75}}=o(1)$ ] . @xmath76 } } & \leq \sum_{s=1}^{t_1 } { { { \bf{pr}}\left [ { d_t(s ) \geq t_0^{1/6}t^{1/2}}\right ] } } = \sum_{s=1}^{t_1 } { { { \bf{pr}}\left [ { d_t(s)^{(3 ) } \geq ( t_0^{1/6}t^{1/2})^{(3 ) } } \right ] } } \\              & \leq t_0^{-1/2}t^{-3/2 } \sum_{s=1}^{t_1 } { { \mathbb e}\left [ { d_t(s)^{(3 ) } } \right ] }   \leq t_0^{-1/2}t^{-3/2 } \sum_{s=1}^{t_1 } 5!\sqrt{2 } \frac{t^{3/2}}{s^{3/2 } } \\              & \leq 5!\sqrt{2}\zeta(3/2)t_0^{-1/2 } = o(1)\end{aligned}\ ] ]    where @xmath77 . the @xmath0 highest degrees are added before @xmath42 and have degree @xmath78 bounded by @xmath79 _ whp _  . [ lem : lemma5 ]    for the upper bound it suffices to show that @xmath80 . this follows immediately by lemmas  [ lem : lemma3 ] and  [ lem : lemma4 ] . the lower bound follows directly from lemmas  [ lem : lemma2 ] ,  [ lem : lemma3 ] and  [ lem : lemma4 ] . assume that at most @xmath81 vertices added before @xmath42 have degree exceeding the lower bound @xmath82 . then the total degree of the supernode formed by the first @xmath41 vertices is @xmath83 . this contradicts lemma  [ lem : lemma2 ] . finally , since each vertex @xmath84 has degree at most @xmath85 the @xmath0 highest degree vertices are added before @xmath42 _ whp _  . the @xmath0 highest degrees satisfy @xmath86 _ whp _  . [ lem : lemma6 ]    let @xmath87 denote the event that there are two vertices among the first @xmath42 with degree @xmath82 and within @xmath88 of each other . by the definition of conditional probability and lemma  [ lem : lemma3 ]    @xmath89 } }   & = { { { \bf{pr}}\left[{\mathcal{a}_4|\bar{\mathcal{a}_3}}\right ] } } { { { \bf{pr}}\left[{\bar{\mathcal{a}_3}}\right ] } } + { { { \bf{pr}}\left[{\mathcal{a}_4|\mathcal{a}_3}\right]}}{{{\bf{pr}}\left[{\mathcal{a}_3}\right ] } } \leq { { { \bf{pr}}\left[{\mathcal{a}_4|\bar{\mathcal{a}_3}}\right ] } } + o(1 ) \end{aligned}\ ] ]    it suffices to show that @xmath90}}=o(1)$ ] . note that by a simple union bound    @xmath89 } } & \leq \sum_{1 \leq s_1 < s_2 \leq t_1 } \sum_{l=-\frac{\sqrt{t}}{f(t)}}^{\frac{\sqrt{t}}{f(t ) } } p_{l , s_1,s_2 } = o\big(t_1 ^ 2 \frac{\sqrt{t}}{f(t ) } \max { p_{l , s_1,s_2 } } \big)\end{aligned}\ ] ]    where @xmath91}}$ ] . we consider two cases and we show that in both cases @xmath92 . + note that at time @xmath42 there exist @xmath93 edges in @xmath94 . @xmath95 } } \tag{2}\\                 & \leq t_0^{1/6}t^{1/2 }   \sum_{d_1,d_2=3}^{4t_1 } { 2t_0^{1/6}t^{1/2 } \choose d_1 - 1 } { 2t_0^{1/6}t^{1/2 } \choose d_2 - 1 } \big(\frac{2t_0 + 3}{2t+1}\big)^{(d_1+d_2)/2 } e^{\frac{3}{2}+t_1+\frac{2t_0^{1/6}}{3 } } \tag{3}\\                 & \leq t_0^{1/6}t^{1/2 } \sum_{d_1,d_2=3}^{4t_1 }   ( 2t_0^{1/6}t^{1/2})^{d_1+d_2 - 2 }   \big(\frac{2t_0 + 3}{2t+1}\big)^{(d_1+d_2)/2 } e^{2t_1 } \\                 & \leq   t_0^{1/6}t^{1/2 } e^{2t_1 } t_1 ^ 2 ( 2t_0^{1/6}t^{1/2})^{8t_1 - 2 } \big(\frac{2t_0 + 3}{2t+1}\big)^{4t_1 } \\                & = t_0^{4t_1/3 + 1/6}t^{-1/2 } e^{2t_1 } t_1 ^ 2 2^{8t_1 } ( 2t_0 + 3)^{4t_1 } \big ( \frac{t}{2t+1 } \big)^{4t_1 } \\                 & = o\big ( \frac{f(t)}{t_1 ^ 2\sqrt{t } } \big)\end{aligned}\ ] ]    note that we omitted the tedious calculation justifying the transition from ( 2 ) to ( 3 ) since calculating the upper bound of the joint probability distribution is very similar to the calculation of lemma  [ lem : lemma2 ] . +   + notice that in any case @xmath96 share at most two faces ( which may change over time ) . note that the two connected vertices @xmath97 share a common face only if @xmath98 . the other case is treated in the same manner . ] . consider the following modified process @xmath99 : whenever an incoming vertex `` picks '' one of the two common faces we do nt insert it . we choose two other faces which are not common to @xmath97 and add one vertex in each of those . notice that the number of faces increases by 1 for both @xmath97 as in the original process and the difference of the degrees remains the same . an algebraic manipulation similar to case 1 gives the desired result . in complex network analysis the spectrum of the adjacency matrix is an important aspect of the network or more generally of the network model with several applications , e.g. , triangle counting @xcite . to the best of our knowledge the spectrum of random apollonian networks has been studied only experimentally @xcite . here , we prove theorem  [ thrm : thrm2 ] . we decompose the proof of the main theorem in lemmas  [ lem : lemma7 ] ,  [ lem : lemma8 ] ,  [ lem : lemma9 ] ,  [ lem : lemma10 ] . having computed the highest degrees of a ran in section  [ sec : degree ] , eigenvalues are computed by adapting existing techniques @xcite , see also @xcite for a closely related analysis , and taking into account the special properties of the model . we decompose the proof of theorem  [ thrm : thrm2 ] in four lemmas . specifically , in lemmas  [ lem : lemma7 ] ,  [ lem : lemma8 ] we bound the degrees and co - degrees respectively . having these bounds , we decompose the graph into a star forest and show in lemmas  [ lem : lemma9 ] and  [ lem : lemma10 ] that its largest eigenvalues , which are @xmath100 , dominate the eigenvalues of the remaining graph . we partition the vertices into three set @xmath101 . specifically , let @xmath102 be the set of vertices added after time @xmath103 and at or before time @xmath104 where    @xmath105    in the following we use the recursive variational characterization of eigenvalues @xcite . specifically , let @xmath106 denote the adjacency matrix of a simple , undirected graph @xmath107 and let @xmath108 denote the @xmath109-th largest eigenvalue of @xmath106 . then    @xmath110    where @xmath111 ranges over all @xmath112 dimensional subspaces of @xmath113 . we shall use the following lemma in our proof , specifically in the proof of lemma  [ lem : lemma9 ] .    for any @xmath114 and any @xmath17 with @xmath4 as @xmath5 the following holds _ whp _  : for all @xmath46 with @xmath115 , for all vertices @xmath116 , then @xmath117 . [ lem : lemma7 ]    set @xmath118 . we use lemma  [ lem : lemma1 ] , a simple union bound and markov s inequality to obtain :    @xmath119 } } & \leq \sum_{s = f(t)}^t \sum_{r=1}^s   { { { \bf{pr}}\left [ { d_s(r)^{(q ) } \geq ( s^{1/2+\epsilon } r^{-1/2})^{(q ) }   } \right]}}\\ & \leq \sum_{s = f(t)}^t \sum_{r=1}^s   { { { \bf{pr}}\left [ { d_s(r)^{(q ) } \geq ( s^{-(q/2+q\epsilon ) } r^{q/2 } ) } \right ] } } \\   & \leq \sum_{s = f(t)}^t \sum_{r=1}^s   \frac{(q+2)!}{2 } \big ( \frac{2s}{r } \big)^{q/2 } s^{-q/2 } s^{-q\epsilon } r^{q/2 }   \\ & = \frac{(q+2)!}{2 } 2^{q/2 } \sum_{s = f(t)}^t s^{1-q\epsilon } \\ & \leq \frac{(q+2)!}{2 } 2^{q/2 }    \int_{f(t)-1}^t \ ! x^{1-q\epsilon }   \ , \mathrm{d}x     \\ & \leq \frac{(q+2)!}{2(q\epsilon-2 ) } 2^{q/2 } ( f(t)-1)^{2-q\epsilon } = o(1).\end{aligned}\ ] ]    let @xmath120 be the set of vertices in @xmath121 which are adjacent to more than one vertex of @xmath122 . then @xmath123 _ whp _  . [ lem : lemma8 ]    first , observe that when vertex @xmath46 is inserted it becomes adjacent to more than one vertex of @xmath122 if the face chosen by @xmath46 has at least two vertices in @xmath122 . we call the latter property @xmath124 and we write @xmath125 when @xmath46 satisfies it . at time @xmath42 there exist @xmath126 faces total , which consist of faces whose three vertices are all from @xmath122 . at time @xmath127 there can be at most @xmath128 faces with at least two vertices in @xmath122 since each of the original @xmath126 faces can give rise to at most 3 new faces with at least two vertices in @xmath129 . consider a vertex @xmath130 , i.e. , @xmath127 . by the above argument , @xmath131 } } \leq \frac{6t_1 + 3}{2t+1}$ ] . writing @xmath132 as a sum of indicator variables , i.e. , @xmath133 and taking the expectation we obtain    @xmath134 } & \leq \sum_{s = t_2}^t \frac{6t_1 + 3}{2t+1 } \leq ( 6t_1 + 3 ) \int_{t_2}^t \ ! ( 2x+1)^{-1 } \ , \mathrm{d}x   \\            & \leq ( 3t^{\tfrac{1}{8}}+\tfrac{3}{2 } )    \ln{\frac{2t+1}{2t_2 + 1}}= o(t^{1/7})\end{aligned}\ ] ]    by markov s inequality :    @xmath135 } } \leq \frac { { { \mathbb e}\left[{|s_3'|}\right ] } } { t^{1/6 } }   = o(1).\ ] ]    therefore , we conclude that @xmath136 _ whp _  . let @xmath137 be the star forest consisting of edges between @xmath122 and @xmath138 . let @xmath16 denote the @xmath0 highest degrees of @xmath107 . then @xmath139 _ whp _  . [ lem : lemma9 ]    it suffices to show that @xmath140 for @xmath141 . note that since the @xmath0 highest vertices are inserted before @xmath42 _ whp _  , the edges they lose are the edges between @xmath122 and the ones incident to @xmath120 and @xmath142 and we know how to bound the cardinalities of all these sets . specifically by lemma  [ lem : lemma8 ] @xmath136 _ whp _  and by theorem  [ thrm : thrm1 ] the maximum degree in @xmath143 is less than @xmath144 , @xmath145 for @xmath146 respectively _ whp _  . also by theorem  [ thrm : thrm1 ] @xmath147 . hence , we obtain    @xmath148    to complete the proof of theorem  [ thrm : thrm2 ] it suffices to prove that @xmath149 is @xmath150 where @xmath151 . we prove this in the following lemma . the proof is based on bounding maximum degree of appropriately defined subgraphs using lemma  [ lem : lemma7 ] and then using standard inequalities from spectral graph theory @xcite . @xmath152 _ whp _  . [ lem : lemma10 ]    from gershgorin s theorem @xcite the maximum eigenvalue of any graph is bounded by the maximum degree . we bound the eigenvalues of @xmath153 by bounding the maximum eigenvalues of six different induced subgraphs . specifically , let @xmath154 $ ] , @xmath155 where @xmath156 $ ] is the subgraph induced by the vertex set @xmath111 and @xmath157 is the subgraph containing only edges with one vertex is @xmath111 and other in @xmath158 . we use lemma  [ lem : lemma9 ] to bound @xmath159 and lemma  [ lem : lemma8 ] for the other eigenvalues . we set @xmath160 . @xmath161 @xmath162 @xmath163 @xmath164 @xmath165 @xmath166    therefore _ whp _ we obtain    @xmath167 as shown in appendix b of @xcite using physicist s methodology the diameter of a ran is asymptotically upper bounded by a logarithmic factor @xmath168 . similarly , zhang et al . @xcite show that the diameter scales logarithmically . in the following we give a simple proof that the diameter @xmath10 of the graph @xmath15 created @xmath2 steps is @xmath169 _ whp _  and in theorem  [ thrm : ternary ] we give a refined upper bound for the diameter .    . each face is labelled with its depth.,scaledwidth=30.0% ]    we begin with a necessary definition for the proof of claim  [ claim : diameter ] . we define the _ depth of a face _ recursively . initially we have one face @xmath170 its depth is @xmath171 . for each new face @xmath172 created by picking a face @xmath173 , we have @xmath174 . an example is shown in figure  [ fig : depth ] , where each face is labelled with its corresponding depth . the diameter @xmath10 of the graph @xmath15 created @xmath2 steps is @xmath169 _ whp _  . [ claim : diameter ]    note that if @xmath175 is the maximum depth of a face then @xmath176 . hence , we need to upper bound the depth of a given face after @xmath2 rounds . let @xmath177 be the number of faces of depth @xmath0 at time @xmath2 , then :    @xmath178 } & = \sum_{1 \leq t_1<t_2<\ldots < t_k\leq t } \prod_{j=1}^k \frac{1}{2t_j+1 } \leq \frac{1}{k ! } ( \sum_{j=1}^t \frac{1}{2j+1 } ) ^k \leq \frac{1}{k ! } ( \frac{1}{2 } \log{t})^k \leq    ( \frac{e\log{t}}{2k})^{k+1}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    by the first moment method we obtain @xmath179 _ whp _  and hence @xmath180 _ whp _  .        the depth of a face can be formalized via a bijection between random ternary trees and rans . using this bijection we prove theorem  [ thrm : ternary ] which gives a refined upper bound on the asymptotic growth of the diameter . consider the random process which starts with a single vertex tree and at every step picks a random leaf and adds three children to it . let @xmath158 be the resulting tree after @xmath2 steps . there exists a natural bijection between the ran process and this process , see @xcite and also figure  [ fig : ternary ] . the depth of @xmath158 in probability is @xmath181 where @xmath12 is the unique solution greater than 1 of the equation @xmath13 , see broutin and devroye @xcite , pp . 284 - 285 . note that the diameter @xmath10 is at most twice the height of the tree and hence the result follows . the above observation , i.e. , the bijection between rans and random ternary trees can not be used to lower bound the diameter . a counterexample is shown in figure  [ fig : counter ] where the height of the random ternary tree can be made arbitrarily large but the diameter is 2 . albenque and marckert proved in @xcite that if @xmath182 are two i.i.d . uniformly random internal vertices , i.e. , @xmath183 , then the distance @xmath184 tends to @xmath185 with probability 1 as the number of vertices @xmath186 of the ran grows to infinity . however , an exact expression of the asymptotic growth of the diameter to the best of our knowledge remains an open problem . finally , it is worth mentioning that the diameter of the ran grows faster asymptotically than the diameter of the classic preferential attachment model @xcite which _ whp _   grows as @xmath187 , see bollobs and riordan @xcite . consider the three faces created after the insertion of the first point . let s call the face which gets the first vertex @xmath188 and the other two faces @xmath189 , see also figure  [ fig : fig1](b ) . also for simplicity of the notation let the configuration of figure  [ fig : fig1](b ) correspond to time @xmath190 . let @xmath191 equal the number of steps until a new vertex picks face @xmath192 or @xmath193 . clearly , @xmath194 . what is the expectation @xmath195}$ ] ? for any @xmath196    @xmath197 } } & = \prod_{j=1}^t \frac{3 + 2(j-1)}{5 + 2(j-1 ) } = \frac{3}{2t+3}.\end{aligned}\ ] ]    using now the fact that @xmath195 } = \sum_{t=1}^{+\infty } { { { \bf{pr}}\left[{x \geq t}\right]}}= 1 + \sum_{t=1}^{+\infty } { { { \bf{pr}}\left[{x > t}\right]}}$ ] and substituting we obtain that @xmath195 } = + \infty$ ] . in this work we studied several aspects of random apollonian networks , namely the highest degree vertices , the spectrum , the diameter and the `` waiting times '' . there are various research directions which we plan to address in future work . indicatively , we report the following : ( a ) in contrast to the preferential attachment model , ran have small separators . specifically , by the lipton - tarjan theorem @xcite we know the existence of a good separator of size @xmath198 . this is in accordance with the empirical observation that real world networks have good separators @xcite . we plan to investigative the minimum size separator in future work . ( b ) consider the natural process where an adversary with probability @xmath170 at every step deletes a vertex from the network , e.g. , uniformly at random or in a maliscious way . under which conditions do we obtain a connected ran ? ( c ) what is the exact asymptotic expression for the diameter of @xmath15 ? we would like to thank luc devroye and alexis darrasse for pointing out references @xcite and @xcite respectively . 99    aiello , w. , chung , f. , lu , l. : _ a random graph model for power law graphs _ experimental mathemathics , 10(1 ) , 53 - 66 , 2001    albenque , m. , marckert , j.f . : _ some families of increasing planar maps _ electronic journal of probability , 13 , pp . 1624 - 1671    albert , r. , barabsi , a. , jeong , h. : _ diameter of the world wide web . _ nature 401 , pp . 103131 , 1999    andrade , j.s . , herrmann , h.j . , andrade , r.f.s . , da silva , l.r . : _ apollonian networks : simultaneously scale - free , small world euclidean , space filling , and with matching graphs _ phys . 94 ( 2005 ) 018702 . andrade , r.f.s . , miranda , j.g.v . : _ spectral properties of the apollonian network _ physica a , 356 , ( 2005 )    aumann , r. : _ acceptable points in general cooperative @xmath186-person games _ contributions to the theory of games iv , pp . 287 - 324 , princeton university press , 1959    aumann , r. , myerson , r. : _ endogenous information of links between players and coalition : an application to the shapley value _ shapley value , pp . 175 - 191 , cambridge university press , 1988    bala , v. , goyal , s. : _ a noncooperative model of network formation _ econometrica , econometric society , vol . 68(5 ) , pp . 1181 - 1230 , 2000    barabsi , a. , albert , r. : _ emergence of scaling in random networks _ science 286 , pp . 509512 , 1999    barthlemy , m. , flammini , a. : _ modeling urban street patterns _ physical review letters , 100(13 ) , 138702(4 ) , 2008    blandford , d. , blelloch , g. , kash , i. : _ compact representations of separable graphs _ proceedings of the fourteenth annual acm - siam symposium on discrete algorithms ( soda 03 ) , pp . 679 - 688 , 2003    bodini , o. , darrasse , a. , soria , m. : _ distances in random apollonian network structures _ available at arxiv http://arxiv.org/abs/0712.2129    bollobs , b. , riordan , o. : _ the diameter of a scale - free random graph _ combinatorica , 2002    bonato , a. , hadi , n , horn , p. , pralat , p. : _ models of online social networks _ internet mathematics , to appear ( 2011 )    boorman , s. : _ a combinatorial optimization model of transmission of job information through contact networks _ bell journal of economics , 6:216 - 249 , 1975    boyd , d.w . : _ the sequence of radii of the apollonian packing _ mathematics of computation , vol . 249 - 254 , 1982    broder , a. , kumar , r. , maghoul , f. , raghavan , p. , rajagopalan , s. , stata , r. , tomkins , a. , wiener , j. : _ graph structure in the web _ in proc . of the 9th intl . world wide web conference , pp . amsterdam : north - holland publishing company , 2000    chung graham , f. : _ spectral graph theory _ american mathematical society 1997    chung graham , f. , lu , l. : _ complex graphs and networks _ american mathematical society , no . 107 ( 2006 ) chung , f. , lu , l , vu . v.h . : _ spectra of random graphs with given expected degrees _ proceedings of the national academy of sciences of the united states of america , 100 , 63136318    cooper , c. , frieze , a. : _ a general model of web graphs _ random structures & algorithms , volume 22 issue 3,pp . 311335 , 2003    cooper , c. , uehara , r. : _ scale free properties of random @xmath0-trees _ mathematics in computer science , 3(4 ) , pp . 489496 , 2010    darrasse , a. , soria , m. : _ degree distribution of random apollonian network structures and boltzmann sampling _ 2007 conference on analysis of algorithms , aofa 07 , dmtcs proceedings . darrasse , a. , hwang , h .- k . , bodini , o. , soria , m. : _ the connectivity - profile of random increasing k - trees _ available at arxiv : http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.3639    broutin , n. , devroye , l. : _ large deviations for the weighted height of an extended class of trees _ algorithmica , 46 , pp . 271 - 297 , 2006    doye , j.p.k , massen , c.p . : _ self - similar disk packings as model spatial scale - free networks _ e 71 ( 2005 ) 016128 . eisenstat , d. : _ random road networks : the quadtree model _ available at arxiv    erds , p. , rnyi , a. : _ on random graphs i _ publicationes mathematicae debrecen 6 , pp . 290 - 297 , 1959    erds , p. , rnyi , a. : _ on the evolution of random graphs _ magyar tud . akad . mat . kutat int . kzl 5 , pp . 17 - 61 , 1960    fabrikant , a. , koutsoupias , e. , papadimitriou , c. : _ heuristically optimized trade - offs _ proceedings of the 29th international colloquium on automata , languages , and programming ( icalp ) , pp . 110122 , 2002    faloutsos , m. , faloutsos , p. , faloutsos , c. : _ on power - law relationships of the internet topology _ proceedings of the conference on applications , technologies , architectures , and protocols for computer communication ( sigcomm ) , 1999    flaxman , a. , frieze , a. , fenner , t. : _ high degree vertices and eigenvalues in the preferential attachment graph _ internet mathematics , 2(1 ) , 2005    gao , y. : _ the degree distribution of random k - trees _ theoretical computer science , 410(8 - 10 ) , 2009 . gao , y. , hobson , c. : _ . random k - tree as a model for complex networks _ in the fourth workshop on algorithms and models for the web - graph ( waw2006 ) , 2006    gilbert , e.n . : _ random graphs _ annals of mathematical statistics , 30 , pp . 1141 - 1144 , 1959    graham , r.l . , lagarias , j.c . , mallows , c.l . , wilks , a.r . , yan , c.h . : _ apollonian circle packings : number theory _ j. number theory 100 , no . 1 , 1 - 45 , mr1971245    guy , s. , chhugani , j. , curtis , s. , dubey , p. , lin , m. , manocha , d. : _ pledestrians : a least - effort approach to crowd simulation _ eurographics / acm siggraph symposium on computer animation , 2010 .    hayashi , y. , matsukubo , j. : _ a review of recent studies of geographical scale - free networks _ available at arxiv : cond / physics/0512011    kloks , t. : _ treewidth : computations and approximations _ springer - verlag , 1994    kolountzakis , m.n , miller , g.l . , peng , r. , tsourakakis , c.e . : _ efficient triangle counting in large graphs via degree - based vertex partitioning _ 7th workshop on algorithms and models for the web graph ( waw 10 ) , 2010    lipton , r.j . , tarjan , r. : _ a separator theorem for planar graphs _ siam journal on applied mathematics 36 : 177189 , 1979    leskovec , j. , faloutsos , c. : _ scalable modeling of real graphs using kronecker multiplication _ machine learning proceedings of the twenty - fourth international conference ( icml 2007 ) , corvalis , oregon , usa , june 20 - 24 , 2007    masucci , a.p . , smith , d. , crooks , a. , batty , m. : _ random planar graphs and the london street network _ european physics journal b ( 2009 )    mihail , m. , papadimitriou , c. : _ on the eigenvalue power law _ random 02 , pp . 254 - 262 ( 2002 )    panholzer , a. , seitz , g. : _ ordered increasing @xmath0-trees : introduction and analysis of a preferential attachment network model _ dmtcs proc . , aofa10 , pp . 549 - 564 , 2010    pralat , p. , wormald , n. : _ growing protean graphs _ internet mathematics , 4(1 ) , pp . 1 - 16 , 2007    strang , g. : _ linear algebra and its applications _ brooks cole , 2005    tsourakakis , c.e . : _ fast counting of triangles in large real networks without counting : algorithms and laws _ eighth ieee international conference on data mining ( icdm 08 ) , 2008    watts , d. , strogatz , s. : _ collective dynamics of small - world networks _ nature , 1998 , * 393 * , 440 - 442    wu , z .- x . , xu , x .- j . , wang , y .- h . : _ comment on `` maximal planar networks with large clustering coefficient and power - law degree distribution '' _ physical review , e 73 , 058101 ( 2006 )    zhang , z.z . , comellas , f. , fertin , g. , rong , l.l . : _ high dimensional apollonian networks _ available at arxiv http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0503316    zhou , t. , yan , g. , wang , b.h . : _ maximal planar networks with large clustering coefficient and power - law degree distribution _ phys . e 71 ( 2005 ) 046141 . let @xmath199 be a vector denoting that @xmath58 increases by 1 at @xmath200 for @xmath201 . we upper bound the probability @xmath202 of this event in the following.note that we consider the case where the vertices have same degree as the number of faces around them , figure  [ fig : fig2](b ) . the other case is analyzed in exactly the same way , modulo a negligible error term . @xmath203 \bigg [ \prod_{k=0}^r \prod_{j=\tau_k+1}^{\tau_{k+1}-1 } \big(1-\frac{d_0+k}{2j+1}\big ) \bigg ] \\            & = d_0 ( d_0 + 1 ) \ldots ( d_0+r-1)\bigg [ \prod_{k=1}^r \frac{1}{2\tau_k+1 } \bigg ]           \exp{\bigg ( \sum_{k=0}^r \sum_{j=\tau_k+1}^{\tau_{k+1}-1 } \log{\big(1-\frac{d_0+k}{2j+1}\big ) }   \bigg ) } \\           & = \frac{(d_0+r-1)!}{(d_0 - 1)!}\bigg [ \prod_{k=1}^r \frac{1}{2\tau_k+1 } \bigg ]           \exp{\bigg ( \sum_{k=0}^r \sum_{j=\tau_k+1}^{\tau_{k+1}-1 } \log{\big(1-\frac{d_0+k}{2j+1}\big ) }   \bigg ) } \\\end{aligned}\ ] ]                                          @xmath225 \\    & \leq c(r , d_0,t_0,t ) \sum_{t_0-\lceil \tfrac{d_0}{2 } \rceil + 1 \leq \tau_1 ' \leq .. \leq \tau_r ' \leq t-\lceil \tfrac{d_0+r}{2 } \rceil }   \prod_{k=1}^r   \big [ ( 2\tau_k'+3)^{-1/2 } \big ( 1+\frac{1}{\tau_k'+\frac{d_0+k}{2 } + 1/2}\big)\big ] \\ & \leq \frac{c(r , d_0,t_0,t)}{r ! } \bigg ( \sum_{t_0-\lceil \tfrac{d_0}{2 } \rceil}^{t-\lceil \tfrac{d_0+r}{2 } \rceil } ( 2\tau_k'+3)^{-1/2}+\tfrac{1}{\sqrt{2 } } ( \tau_k'+3/2)^{-3/2 } \bigg)^r \\    & \leq \frac{c(r , d_0,t_0,t)}{r ! }   \bigg ( \int_{0}^{t-\frac{d+r}{2 } } \ ! \big [   ( 2x+3)^{-1/2 } + \tfrac{1}{\sqrt{2 } } ( x+3/2)^{-3/2 } \big ] \ , \mathrm{d}x\bigg)^r \\     & \leq \frac{c(r , d_0,t_0,t)}{r ! } \big(\sqrt{2t+3-(d_0+r)}+2/3\big)^{r }   \\     & \leq \frac{c(r , d_0,t_0,t)}{r ! } ( 2t)^{r/2 } e^{-\tfrac{r}{2 } \tfrac{d_0+r-3}{2 t } } e^{\frac{2r}{3\sqrt{2t-(d_0+r)+3 } } } \\    & \leq { d_0+r-1 \choose d_0 - 1 } \big(\frac{2t_0 + 3}{2t+1}\big)^{d_0/2 } \big [ \big ( 1-\frac{d_0}{2t_0 + 3}\big)^{-(1-\frac{d_0}{2t_0 + 3 } ) } \big]^{t_0 + 3/2 } \times \\     & \big(\frac{2t}{2t+1}\big)^{r/2 } \exp{\big ( -\frac{d_0}{2 } + \frac{(d_0+r)^2}{8t+4}+ \frac{(d_0+r)^3}{4(2t+1)^2 } - \frac{r(d_0+r-3)}{4t}+\frac{2r}{3\sqrt{2t+3-(d_0+r ) } }   \big ) } \\ \end{aligned}\ ] ]
Abstract:

Answer: upon the discovery of power laws @xcite , a large body of work in complex network analysis has focused on developing generative models of graphs which mimick real - world network properties such as skewed degree distributions @xcite , small diameter @xcite and large clustering coefficients @xcite . most of these models belong either to the stochastic , e.g. , @xcite , or the strategic e.g. , @xcite , family of network formation models . despite the fact that planar graphs arise in numerous real - world settings , e.g. , in road and railway maps , in printed circuits , in chemical molecules , in river networks @xcite , comparably less attention has been devoted to the study of planar graph generators . in this work we analyze basic properties of random apollonian networks @xcite , a popular stochastic model which generates planar graphs with power law properties . specifically , let @xmath0 be a constant and @xmath1 be the degrees of the @xmath0 highest degree vertices . we prove that at time @xmath2 , for any function @xmath3 with @xmath4 as @xmath5 , @xmath6 and for @xmath7 , @xmath8 with high probability ( _ whp _  ) . then , we show that the @xmath0 largest eigenvalues of the adjacency matrix of this graph satisfy @xmath9 _ whp _  . furthermore , we prove a refined upper bound on the asymptotic growth of the diameter , i.e. , that _ whp _  the diameter @xmath10 at time @xmath2 satisfies @xmath11 where @xmath12 is the unique solution greater than 1 of the equation @xmath13 . finally , we investigate other properties of the model .


Instruction: Write an abstract for the following acadamic paper.

Input:
Paper: we have recorded the flight of a fly during take off and landing using digital high speed photography . it is shown that the dynamics of flexible wings are different for these procedures . during this observation fly flew freely in a big box and it was not tethered .
Abstract: in this fluid dynamics video , we demonstrated take off and landing of a fly . the deformation of wings is in focus in this video .

Paper: globular clusters in extragalactic systems have established themselves as powerful diagnostics of the star formation history , dynamics , and structure of their host galaxies ( see ashman & zepf 1998 for a recent review ) . most of the observational studies of extragalactic globular cluster systems ( gcss ) have concentrated on the systems of early  type galaxies , where globular clusters are easily identified against the smooth , dust free background . these studies have uncovered the characteristic properties of such globular cluster systems , as well as notable galaxy - to - galaxy variations in these properties . in comparison , information on the globular cluster systems of late - type galaxies is sparse . the use of globular cluster systems as probes of the formation and evolution of galaxies is severely limited by this scarcity of data for spiral galaxy gcss . there are two primary problems . the first is that much of the interpretation of early - type galaxy gcss has used the well - studied globular cluster system of the milky way as a benchmark . for example , the result that the globular clusters of elliptical galaxies are more metal - rich in the mean than those of spiral galaxies is largely based on the mean metallicity of milky way globulars . consequently , it is extremely important to establish whether the properties of the milky way globular cluster system are typical of spiral galaxy gcss . the second issue is that a better understanding of the gcss of late  type galaxies is needed in order to fully utilize gcss as probes of the formation and early evolution of galaxies . this is self - evident for the case of late  type galaxies , but is also a critical issue for constraining models of the formation and early evolution of elliptical galaxies . this is particularly important for testing the predictions of the merger model , in which elliptical galaxies are formed in the merger of spiral galaxies . in this picture , the gcss of elliptical galaxies are composite systems . one population of clusters is associated with the progenitor spirals , while a second population of clusters forms in the merger event . ashman and zepf ( 1992 ) described several testable predictions arising from this scenario . however , the limited information on the the gcss of spirals leads to uncertainties in these predictions since it is currently unclear what constitutes a typical spiral galaxy gcss . one particular problem is that the characteristic specific frequency of globular clusters around spirals is poorly known . the absence of firm constraints on the number of globular clusters contributed by the progenitor spirals to an elliptical galaxy gcs leads to uncertainties in many of the detailed predictions for these systems that follow from the merger model . one of the key results of the present study is to add to the database of globular cluster specific frequencies for spiral galaxies .    in this paper , we present an imaging study of the globular cluster systems of two edge  on spiral galaxies : ngc 4565 and ngc 5907 . globular clusters were already statistically detected in ngc 4565 as stellar - like objects above the mean background by van den bergh & harris ( 1982 ) and fleming et al . the former detected @xmath4 100 clusters to an equivalent limiting magnitude of @xmath5 , and found the clusters to be compatible with a surface density profile of the form @xmath6 , similar to the profile of the milky way system . the latter study determined the peak of the globular cluster luminosity function to be at v@xmath7 . fleming et al . ( 1995 ) extrapolated the observed number of clusters ( @xmath8 ) to a total number of @xmath9 globular clusters and a specific frequency of @xmath10 under their assumptions for luminosity and distance . ngc 5907 has been searched for globular clusters by harris , bothun & hesser ( 1988 ) , but no globular cluster could be detected . the authors speculated that the lack of globular clusters was related to the non  existence of a central bulge .    in section 2 , we present the properties of the galaxies and the observations , and describe the photometry against a highly variable background . in section 3 , the results are analyzed . in section 4 we compare the globular cluster systems to each other and to the milky way . concluding remarks are made in section 5 . we obtained wfpc2 observations of the nearby , edge  on spiral galaxies , ngc  4565 and ngc  5907 ( program go 6092 ) . basic properties of the two galaxies are given in table 1 and a composite of our images is shown in fig .  1 . ngc  4565 is classified as an sb galaxy ( rc3 , hubble atlas ) with an inclination of @xmath11 ( garca - burillo et al . 1997 ) , and is at a distance of 10 mpc , based on surface brightness fluctuations and planetary nebulae ( jacoby et al . 1996 and references therein ) . ngc  5907 is classified as an sc galaxy ( rc3 , hubble atlas ) , with an inclination of @xmath12 ( morrison et al . 1994 ) , and is at a distance of 12 mpc , based on the tully  fisher relation ( bottinelli et al .  1988 , schniger & sofue 1994 ) . the two galaxies are very similar to each other in luminosity , but differ considerably in their disk characteristics . ngc  4565 has a prominent thick disk , accounting for roughly @xmath13 of the total luminosity ( van der kruit & searle 1981 ) . ngc  5907 has a less prominent bulge and an upper limit to the thick disk luminosity of 0.6% of the thin disk value  a relative contribution of less than @xmath14 of the thick disk of the milky way ( morrison et al . 1994 ) .      for both of our target galaxies , ngc  4565 and ngc  5907 , we obtained two pointings with the wfpc2 on hst . as shown in fig .  1 , we aligned each pointing so that the major axis was parallel to the edges of two wf chips , the third wf chip and the pc sampling part of the halo .    for every pointing , images in the f450w and f814w filters were obtained with total integration times ranging from 600 sec to 780 sec in the f450w filter , and of 480 sec in the f814w filter . every pointing was split in three exposures shifted by 0.5 . the basic image reduction was carried out under iraf . for every pointing , the three calibrated science images provided by the space telescope science institute were shifted by 0.5  ( using the task imshift ) and trimmed in order to be aligned . they were then combined with the task crrej that rejected the vast majority of cosmic rays.the images were transformed into fits format for the photometry . the photometry was carried out using the sextractor software ( bertin & arnouts 1996 ) . the finding parameters were set to 2 connected pixels 2.5@xmath15 above the local background ( computed in a 10 by 10 pixel mesh ) . the computation of a local background in a relatively fine grid was chosen to allow the finding criteria to be equivalent in the various parts of the image , in particular towards the disks where the background becomes very irregular . typically , down to an equivalent b magnitude of 25.5 , 0 to 2 objects were detected in both the f450w and f814w image on the pc , 8 to 18 on the wf `` halo '' field , and 130 to 340 on the wf fields including disc and bulge . the latter included a large number of stellar associations and hii regions . positions on the sky ( ra and dec ) were computed for all objects using the task metric in the stsdas package . distance from the center , along the disc , and orthogonal distance from the disc were computed using position angles of @xmath16 for ngc 4565 ( rupen 1991 ) and @xmath17 for ngc 5907 ( garca - burillo et al .  1997 ) . the photometry was carried out with 2 pixel radius apertures in order to avoid being affected by background irregularities . corrections to get the equivalent magnitude to a 0.5  aperture were determined from isolated bright objects on the images and found to be 0.35 and 0.18 mag for the pc and wf f450w measurements respectively , and 0.55 and 0.21 mag in the f814w filter , with errors of @xmath18% . additional 0.1 magnitudes were added to obtain the total magnitude of the objects ( derived for the wfpc2 point spread functions , following holtzman et al . note that at the distance of our galaxies the largest globular clusters will be resolved and these corrections underestimated . this will hardly affect the colors since the luminosity profiles in f450w and f814w are similar , but could significantly affect the individual magnitudes , as a function of the object size ( cf . kundu & whitmore 1998 , puzia et al .  1999 ) . finally , the calibration relation given in holtzman et al .  ( 1995 ) were used to obtain johnson  cousins b and i magnitudes . extensive artificial star experiments with artificial point sources and artificial globular clusters were carried out . for the latter wfpc2 point spread functions obtained with tiny tim ( krist & hook 1997 ) and convolved with a modified hubble law of core radius 0.1  and 0.2were used . the latter correspond to core radii of about 4 to 10 pc at the distance of 10 to 12 mpc , and lie in the upper range of the values measured in the milky way ( only 27% of the milky way cluster have a core radius larger than 4 pc in the compilation of harris 1996 ) . the resulting fwhm of our artificial objects range from 0.8 to 1.5 pixels and 1.5 to 2.5 pixels for artificial stars and globular clusters respectively , at b@xmath19 . these allowed us to define robust selection criteria for globular clusters based on the fwhm of the detected objects ( @xmath20 and @xmath21 pixels , as returned by sextractor ) . these selection criteria were applied down to b@xmath22 ; at fainter magnitudes the signal  to  noise was not sufficient to discriminate with high confidence between point sources and extended objects . note that down to this magnitude limit our finding algorithm is 100% complete and objects will only be missed if they are physically obscured , e.g.  by dust . we further introduced a cut in color and magnitude . for the color cut , we chose b  i @xmath23 , roughly 0.2 magnitudes bluer than the bluest globular clusters in the milky way ( see also fig .  3 ) . no upper limit was chosen to avoid excluding reddened objects . as a magnitude range , we chose b@xmath24 , corresponding to b@xmath25 and @xmath26 at the respective distances of ngc  4565 and ngc  5907 . as a reference , the brightest clusters in the milky way and m31 have b@xmath27 ( @xmath28 cen ) and b@xmath29 ( mayall ii ) . our upper magnitude cut was dictated by the fwhm selection , only reliable down to b@xmath22 which was used as the limiting magnitude . the peak of the globular cluster luminosity function is expected at b@xmath30 , as derived by della valle et al . ( 1998 ) , using the new hipparcos distance calibration and the list of milky way clusters of harris ( 1996 ) . this corresponds to b@xmath31 and b@xmath32 at the distance of the two galaxies , so that we pass the peak of the luminosity function in both cases . the expected number of foreground stars contaminating our images and passing our selection criteria were estimated from galactic models ( ibata , priv .  com . ) and the hubble deep field to be @xmath33 per pointing . the number of contaminating galaxies was estimated from several fields of the medium deep survey ( griffiths et al . 1993 ) and our selection criteria turned out to be robust against background galaxy contamination at these bright magnitudes ( b@xmath19 ) estimated to be @xmath34 per pointing . the final samples include 40 and 25 globular clusters in ngc  4565 and ngc  5907 respectively ( see table 2 and 3 ) . all candidates ( except one in ngc 5907 identified as a star ) were confirmed by a visual inspection . the distribution of globular clusters , together with all objects detected is shown in fig .  2 . the colors of the globular cluster candidates in ngc  4565 , as well as visual inspection of the galaxy dust lane , suggests that the majority of the clusters with positive z suffer significant extinction . the identifiable regions of dust are less extended in ngc  5907 and there is less direct evidence for significant extinction , but we can not rule out reddening of the clusters in this galaxy . color magnitude diagrams for the detected globular clusters in ngc 4565 and ngc 5907 are shown in fig .  3 , together with one for milky way globular clusters ( uncorrected for reddening ) as comparison . the mean colors and dispersion for the samples are @xmath35 in ngc 4565 , @xmath36 in ngc 5907 , and @xmath37 in the milky way ( @xmath38 when corrected for reddening , corresponding to a mean metallicity of [ fe / h]@xmath39 dex ) . this tends to support the evidence that reddening is more of an issue in ngc  4565 than ngc  5907 , at least if the _ intrinsic _ colors ( @xmath4 metallicities ) of the gcss of the three galaxies are similar . one cautionary note in this regard is that the bluer mean colors of the ngc  5907 clusters is partly driven by some very blue objects amongst the globular cluster candidates . since these blue objects are not preferentially located near the disk , it is unlikely that they are young compact star clusters , but it is possible that one or two such objects maybe be included in the sample . despite these complications , the small differences ( @xmath40 ) in the mean @xmath41 values probably suggest only moderate differences in the mean metallicities ( @xmath42 dex following the conversion of couture et al . in order to estimate the total number of globular clusters around ngc  4565 and ngc  5907 , three extrapolations are required . the first is to account for globular clusters fainter than our magnitude limit . the second is for globular clusters that are not covered by our imaging field . the third is for globular clusters lying behind the disk and bulge and being obscured . we chose to estimate the counts by direct comparison with the milky way and estimate the total number of globular clusters in the two galaxies by comparing our observations with the same spatial region and equivalent magnitude limit in our galaxy . this approach has the advantage of taking into account all three extrapolations at once without propagating unnecessary errors . it is motivated by the small number of objects detected and the limited spatial coverage of our observations . these do not allow us to derive the spatial profile of either globular cluster system , necessary to estimate the spatial extrapolation . further , we would still need a model to account for the clusters behind the disk . specifically , we created a mask for each galaxy based on the areal coverage of the two wfpc2 pointings of our observations . these masks excluded regions between chips and the edges of chips where the images were trimmed . also excluded were small regions ( @xmath4 150 @xmath43 ) centered on the bulges where our artificial star experiments indicated the data to be incomplete . by imposing the relevant mask onto the milky way clusters and using an absolute magnitude cut appropriate to @xmath44 at the distances of the two galaxies , we determined the number of milky way globular clusters that would have been detected with our observations . we used positions and magnitudes of milky way globular clusters taken from the mcmaster catalog ( harris 1996 ) to create a 2-dimensional spatial distribution by projecting galactocentric @xmath45 coordinates into the @xmath46 plane . figures 4 and 5 give a visual representation of the results of this process .    for each galaxy , there are four possible orientations of the mask that preserve the alignment of the pointings along the major axis of the galaxy . we therefore repeated the above exercise for all four orientations and in each case counted the number of milky way globular clusters that were `` detected '' ( see table 4 ) . the mean number of clusters from these four possibilities was used to estimate the total number of globular clusters , @xmath47 , in each galaxy , using the expression : @xmath48 where @xmath49 is the total number of globular clusters in the milky way ( @xmath2 , ashman & zepf 1998 ) , @xmath50 is the number of globular clusters observed in our target galaxies ( 40 and 25 for ngc 4565 and ngc 5907 , respectively , corrected to 38 and 23 when accounting for fore-/background contamination ) , and @xmath51 is the mean number of globular clusters from the four mask orientations ( see table 4 ) . the method relies on several assumptions that we discuss in turn . the mcmaster catalog lists 141 globular clusters , 134 of which have galactocentric coordinates , and 112 of which have de - redenned absolute b magnitudes ( which served for the magnitude cut ) . however , the clusters with no reported @xmath52 magnitudes are almost exclusively more than one magnitude fainter than the peak of the luminosity function ( based on their available absolute @xmath53 magnitudes ) and would also be undetected at the distances of our target galaxies . we assumed the total number of globular clusters in the milky way to be @xmath2 . the majority of undetected milky way globulars are assumed to be behind the galactic bulge . the counterparts of such globular clusters in ngc  4565 and ngc  5907 would also be undetected in our observations due to obscuration by disk and bulge . the scale length and scale heights of the thin disk of all three galaxies is not too different ( e.g.  van der kruit & searle 1981 , morrison et al . 1994 , kent et al . we therefore assume than the number of obscured objects is the same in all galaxies ( within 20% ) . thus while our milky way sample is not complete , the missing clusters tend to be ones that we would not detect in ngc  4565 and ngc  5907 anyway . we assumed that the globular cluster luminosity functions of ngc 4565 and ngc 5907 are similar to the one of the milky way , i.e.  roughly gaussian with a peak at b@xmath54 and a standard deviation of @xmath55 ( see sect . this assumption of a ` universality ' of the globular cluster luminosity functions is well supported by all recent observations ( e.g.  whitmore 1997 for a recent review ) . for our assumed distances ( see table 1 ) , our limiting magnitude of b@xmath22 corresponds to @xmath56 and @xmath57 magnitudes past the peak for ngc 4565 and ngc 5907 respectively . this corresponds to @xmath58 and @xmath59 past the peak . in other words , we sampled @xmath60% and @xmath61% of the luminosity functions respectively , and had to implicitly extrapolate over the remaining fraction . this extrapolating was taken care of by a corresponding cut in the absolute magnitude in the milky way sample . we stress that down to the magnitude limit , we do not suffer from finding incompleteness due to the software finding algorithm . another caveat is the implicit assumption that the spatial profile of the milky way globular cluster system is similar to that of the globular cluster systems of ngc  4565 and ngc  5907 . for ngc  4565 , the available photographic data are consistent with this assumption ( see sect .  1 ) . for ngc  5907 , we assume it also to be the case ( but see sect . if the spatial profile of the globular cluster system of ngc  5907 was markedly shallower than that of the milky way , we would detect a higher fraction of globular clusters in the `` halo '' wf and pc fields than we actually do . on the other hand , if the spatial profile was much steeper , it would not greatly affect our estimate of @xmath47 since our areal coverage includes roughly half of all the globular clusters for density profiles comparable to that of the milky way . errors in the distances to the galaxies lead to uncertainty in both the limiting magnitude and size of the mask used to derive the total number of clusters around each galaxy . the distance to ngc  4565 is fairly well established , with three independent secondary indicators all agreeing closely with a value of 10  mpc . the distance to ngc  5907 was derived from the tully  fisher relation and found to be 12 mpc by independent groups . to estimate the effects of distance variations on our derived values , we carried out the same procedure as above with the galaxies at assumed distances of @xmath62  % their preferred values , affecting both mask size and limiting magnitude . the results of this exercise are summarized in table 4 .      in summary , the above considerations lead us to total numbers of globular clusters for the two galaxies of @xmath63 and @xmath64 , following the equation of sect .  3.1.1 , where @xmath50 was corrected for fore-/background contamination . the error is the statistical error only : it includes poisson errors in the observed number of globular clusters , poisson errors in the average number of milky way globular clusters in the mask ( derived from the 4 different orientations ) , and errors in the number of contaminating objects . to this error , potential systematic errors should be added . first , we estimate up to 20% difference in the number of obscured clusters between the milky way and our target galaxies . second , we assumed for the milky way a total number of clusters of @xmath2 ; for a different assumption , our counts should be adjusted accordingly . note that this systematic error does not influence any direct comparison between our two galaxies . the third systematic error comes from our assumed distances . for a 20% error in distance , our results would vary by @xmath65 for ngc 4565 and @xmath66 for ngc 5907 , mainly due to the different limiting magnitude . note that this systematic error significantly affects the total numbers of clusters , but has a much smaller effect on the derived specific frequencies ( see below ) due to the varying total magnitude of the galaxy which compensates somewhat the varying total number of clusters . finally , for ngc 5907 an additional uncertainty is present due to the lack of knowledge on the exact shape of the globular cluster density profile . thus , formally , the total number of globular clusters are @xmath67 and @xmath68 , where the first error is the statistical one , the second error the systematic one .    for ngc 4565 , our result is in good agreement with that of fleming et al . ( 1995 ) , who followed a completely different approach . this gives us confidence that our approach is also valid for ngc 5907 and the previous non  detection of globular cluster should probably be attributed to the poor observing conditions . one can also express these numbers in terms of a specific frequency @xmath69 , where @xmath70 is the absolute visual magnitude of the parent galaxy . using the absolute magnitudes of the two galaxies given in table 1 and the total numbers from the previous section , we obtain @xmath71 and @xmath72 for ngc 4565 and ngc 5907 , respectively . the errors include the random errors from above , as well as an error of 0.2 magnitudes in the de - reddened apparent magnitudes of the galaxies . the effect of the systematic errors would be to lower the @xmath73 values by 0.05 , should the total number of globular clusters in the milky way be @xmath74 ; and to vary @xmath73 by less than 0.1 should the distance of the galaxy vary by 20% ( the increase / decrease in total number being partly compensated by an increase / decrease in the total magnitude of the galaxy ) . the quantity @xmath73 was introduced by harris & van den bergh ( 1981 ) primarily for use in elliptical galaxies where there is little variation in the stellar population from one galaxy to another . zepf & ashman ( 1993 ) attempted to account for stellar mass - to - light ratio variations in a _ statistical _ sense by defining a parameter @xmath75 to be the number of globular clusters per unit ( @xmath76 ) stellar mass of a galaxy . conversion from galactic luminosity to stellar mass was achieved by assuming a characteristic @xmath77 for each morphological type of galaxy . this is not an ideal procedure for individual galaxies , but it does tend to minimize differences in @xmath73 generated by stellar population differences . thus the approach allows us to obtain a comparison of the number of globular clusters in our target galaxies with other late  type galaxies studied to date . for the conversion from luminosity to mass , we follow zepf & ashman ( 1993 ) and use @xmath77 values of 5.4 , 6.1 and 5.0 for sa , sab - sb and sbc - sc galaxies , respectively ( cf .  faber & gallagher 1979 ) . the @xmath75 value for ngc 4565 is @xmath78 if it is assumed to be of type sb and 1.2 if its type is sbc ( errors are of the order 20% , see above ) . for ngc 5097 ( type sc ) @xmath79 . we comment on these values below .      a visual comparison of the detected globular clusters in ngc  4565 and ngc  5907 with the masked milky way distributions ( fig .  4 and 5 ) suggests that the globular cluster system of ngc  5907 may be more flattened than that of the milky way . it is difficult to derive shape information directly for the globular cluster system of this galaxy from our small sample of 25 objects , as well as the asymmetric geometry of the field of view . a comparison of the @xmath80-distributions of ngc  5907 with that of the masked milky way dataset suggests a difference at a 2-@xmath15 level according to a k - s test ( ngc  4565 and the milky way show no detectable difference ) . the inner regions of the milky way globular cluster system is itself known to be somewhat flattened , primarily because of the presence of a thick disk population of globular clusters ( e.g.  zinn 1985 ) so our data are consistent with a flattened globular cluster distribution in ngc  5907 , but do not demand it . the previous non  detection of globular clusters in ngc 5907 ( harris et al . 1988 ) could also point towards a deficiency of objects in the halo , although we can only speculate on this point . their ground based study was based on object over - densities , and was probably unable to detect clusters close to the disk . with a limiting magnitude similar to ours , the density of globular clusters in the halo would be only marginally detectable in a statistical comparison with a background field . the shape of the cluster system in ngc 5907 is of some interest since it has been reported by sackett et al . ( 1994 ) that this galaxy has a highly flattened halo ( @xmath81 ) with a flat density profile falling off roughly as @xmath82 , compared to @xmath83 for the milky way halo and halo clusters . although ngc  4565 and ngc  5907 have similar total luminosities and hubble types , there are significant differences in the disk and bulge properties of the two galaxies . if the properties of the disk and bulge of a spiral galaxy influence the formation and evolution of its globular cluster system , we would therefore expect to find differences in the gcss of these two galaxies .    the metal  rich globular cluster population in the milky way shares the kinematics , abundances and spatial distribution of the bulge and thick disk ( e.g.  armandroff 1993 ; burkert & smith 1997 ) . in the absence of a prominent bulge and thick disk ( as in ngc 5907 ) , we could have expected the absence of metal  rich globular clusters and the presence of a halo population only . the globular cluster system of ngc 5907 would have been less flattened than the one of ngc 4565 ( whereas the opposite is observed as discussed above ) , and the total number of clusters normalized to the galaxy mass would be lower by 20% to 30% in ngc 5907 compared to ngc 4565 ( estimated from the fraction of metal  rich to metal  poor clusters in the milky way ) . the latter could be the case ( see sect . 3.3 ) but for the contradictory reason that ngc 5907 lacks halo clusters and not disk clusters . given the uncertainties in reddening ( i.e.  metallicity determination from the colors ) , we can not allocate individual clusters in these two galaxies to the disk / bulge or halo . this awaits spectroscopic measurements of individual clusters . however , the fact that the globular cluster systems of ngc 4565 and ngc 5907 are still very similar despite difference in the thick disk and bulge characteristics suggests that the processes which form the bulge and thick disk are largely unrelated to the processes which form the total globular cluster systems around late - type galaxies . as mentioned above , both ngc  4565 and ngc  5907 are similar in many respects to the milky way . not only are their morphological types similar ( sb and sbc compared to the sbc milky way ) , but also their absolute magnitudes ( @xmath84 and @xmath85 compared to @xmath86 for the milky way , derived from the tully - fisher relation by adopting @xmath87@xmath88 ) and by implication their total stellar masses . it is therefore notable , although perhaps not surprising , that all three galaxies have very similar _ numbers _ of globular clusters . independently of the total number of milky way clusters , ngc 4565 has about 20% more clusters than the milky way ( but is also slightly more massive ) , while ngc 5907 has the same number of globular clusters as the milky way within the errors . even large errors in our adopted distance would leave all numbers within 50% of each other . in terms of specific frequency , the milky way has @xmath89 for an assumed total magnitude of @xmath90 and @xmath2 globular clusters , identical to the value derived for the two other spirals . five other spirals of type sb to sc have studied globular cluster systems . their @xmath73 values are @xmath91 ( m31 , sb ) , @xmath57 ( ngc 253 , sc ) , @xmath92 ( ngc 2683 , sb ) , @xmath93 ( ngc 4216 , sb ) , @xmath94 ( ngc 5170 , sb ) , all taken from the compilation of ashman & zepf ( 1998 ) . the quoted errors do not take into account the possibility of systematic errors . the corresponding @xmath75 values ( using the mean @xmath95 values as in sect . 3.2 ) are : @xmath96 , and @xmath97 . a maximum likelihood estimation of the mean and dispersion ( including the milky way @xmath98 , ngc 4565 and ngc 5907 ) returns @xmath99 . within the large uncertainties , galaxies of type sb to sc seem to produce a similar number of globular clusters per unit mass .    should ngc 5907 have a lower @xmath73 than assumed ( see sect . 3.3 ) , there would be a hint for sc galaxies to have fewer globular clusters per unit mass . an increase of the number of globular clusters per unit mass along the hubble sequence of late - type galaxies is strengthened by observations of 4 sa and sab galaxies ( ngc 3031 ( = m81 ) , ngc 4569 , ngc 4594 , and ngc 7814 ) . the respective @xmath73 values are @xmath100 , @xmath101 , @xmath102 , @xmath103 ( taken from the compilation in ashman & zepf 1998 ) , and the respective @xmath75 values are @xmath104 , @xmath105 , @xmath106 , and @xmath107 . the mean @xmath75 value for these earlier types is @xmath108 , but note that , except for m81 , these values are poorly defined ( either the number of globular clusters and/or the assumed distance is uncertain ) . we have studied the globular cluster systems around two edge - on spiral galaxies , ngc  4565 and ngc  5907 . for both these galaxies we derive a specific frequency of @xmath109 , indistinguishable from the value of the milky way gcs . the similarity of the specific frequencies is notable since the bulge - to - disk ratio and prominence of the stellar thick disk both differ considerably between the three galaxies . this result suggests that the properties of the thick disk and bulge of spiral galaxies do not have a significant influence on the building of globular cluster systems around such galaxies . there is some evidence for flattening of the globular cluster system of ngc  5907 , but we are unable to determine whether this is driven by a flattened halo population of clusters or a thick disk system . the latter possibility seems somewhat unlikely given the upper limits on any stellar thick disk in this galaxy . an interesting alternative is that the globular clusters in ngc  5907 are following the profile of a significantly flattened halo . we are very grateful to our program coordinator , max mutchler , whose work and help greatly assisted this project . p . gratefully acknowledges support from the alexander von humboldt foundation . k.m.a . and s.e.z . acknowledge support for this project from nasa through the stsci grant go-06092.01 - 94a . ra ( 2000 ) & @xmath110 & @xmath111 & rc3 dec(2000 ) & @xmath112 & @xmath113 & rc3 type & sb & sc & rc3 v@xmath114 & @xmath115 & @xmath116 & rc3 ( value corrected for internal and external reddening)(b  v)@xmath114 & @xmath117 & @xmath118 & rc3 e(b  v ) & 0.015 ( + internal ) & 0.011 ( + internal ) & schlegel et al . 1998 inclination & @xmath11 & @xmath12 & garca - burillo et al . 1997 , morrison et al .  1994 thick disk & 5% of b@xmath119 & @xmath120% of thin disk & van der kruit & searle 1981 , morrison et al .  1994 position angle & @xmath121 & @xmath17 & rupen et al .  1991 , garca - burillo et al .  1997 v@xmath122 & @xmath123@xmath88 & @xmath124@xmath88 & rc3 adopted distance & @xmath125 mpc & @xmath126 mpc & jacoby et al . 1996 , bottinelli et al . 1988 , schniger & sofue 1994 @xmath127 & 30.0 & 30.4 & derived from the above distance @xmath128 & @xmath129 & @xmath85 & derived from the above values      kazf4565 - 1 & 12 36 13.8 & @xmath13026 00 35.3 & -11.6 & -122.4 & @xmath131 & @xmath132kazf4565 - 2 & 12 36 14.0 & @xmath13025 59 58.2 & -35.8 & -94.6 & @xmath133 & @xmath134kazf4565 - 3 & 12 36 15.7 & @xmath13026 00 41.0 & 11.1 & -108.5 & @xmath135 & @xmath136kazf4565 - 4 & 12 36 16.5 & @xmath13025 58 25.0 & -76.8 & -3.7 & @xmath137 & @xmath138kazf4565 - 5 & 12 36 17.4 & @xmath13025 59 16.8 & -31.6 & -32.2 & @xmath139 & @xmath140kazf4565 - 6 & 12 36 17.5 & @xmath13025 59 24.0 & -25.7 & -36.4 & @xmath141 & @xmath142kazf4565 - 7 & 12 36 18.0 & @xmath13025 58 51.2 & -44.7 & -9.0 & @xmath143 & @xmath144kazf4565 - 8 & 12 36 18.0 & @xmath13025 59 26.5 & -20.0 & -34.3 & @xmath145 & @xmath146kazf4565 - 9 & 12 36 18.1 & @xmath13025 59 29.8 & -15.9 & -35.0 & @xmath147 & @xmath148kazf4565 - 10 & 12 36 18.4 & @xmath13025 59 30.5 & -12.7 & -32.8 & @xmath149 & @xmath150kazf4565 - 11 & 12 36 18.5 & @xmath13025 59 26.9 & -14.7 & -29.5 & @xmath151 & @xmath152kazf4565 - 12 & 12 36 18.8 & @xmath13025 59 04.9 & -27.4 & -11.3 & @xmath153 & @xmath154kazf4565 - 13 & 12 36 18.9 & @xmath13025 59 01.7 & -28.1 & -7.7 & @xmath155 & @xmath156kazf4565 - 14 & 12 36 19.2 & @xmath13025 59 25.4 & -9.2 & -22.4 & @xmath157 & @xmath158kazf4565 - 15 & 12 36 19.7 & @xmath13026 00 04.7 & 23.2 & -45.3 & @xmath159 & @xmath160kazf4565 - 16 & 12 36 19.8 & @xmath13025 58 55.9 & -23.4 & 5.1 & @xmath161 & @xmath162kazf4565 - 17 & 12 36 19.9 & @xmath13025 59 20.4 & -5.4 & -11.3 & @xmath163 & @xmath164kazf4565 - 18 & 12 36 20.0 & @xmath13025 59 14.3 & -8.7 & -6.2 & @xmath165 & @xmath166kazf4565 - 19 & 12 36 20.2 & @xmath13025 59 56.0 & 22.0 & -34.8 & @xmath167 & @xmath168kazf4565 - 20 & 12 36 20.3 & @xmath13025 59 06.4 & -11.5 & 2.0 & @xmath169 & @xmath170kazf4565 - 21 & 12 36 20.8 & @xmath13025 58 31.8 & -30.8 & 31.8 & @xmath171 & @xmath172kazf4565 - 22 & 12 36 21.1 & @xmath13025 59 36.6 & 17.8 & -11.3 & @xmath173 & @xmath174kazf4565 - 23 & 12 36 21.2 & @xmath13025 58 34.7 & -25.3 & 33.2 & @xmath175 & @xmath176kazf4565 - 24 & 12 36 21.6 & @xmath13025 59 44.2 & 27.3 & -12.8 & @xmath177 & @xmath178kazf4565 - 25 & 12 36 21.9 & @xmath13025 58 18.1 & -29.6 & 52.2 & @xmath179 & @xmath180kazf4565 - 26 & 12 36 22.3 & @xmath13025 58 30.4 & -17.6 & 46.6 & @xmath181 & @xmath182kazf4565 - 27 & 12 36 22.4 & @xmath13025 58 40.8 & -8.8 & 40.6 & @xmath183 & @xmath184kazf4565 - 28 & 12 36 22.8 & @xmath13025 58 01.6 & -32.9 & 71.8 & @xmath185 & @xmath186kazf4565 - 29 & 12 36 23.4 & @xmath13025 59 10.0 & 20.5 & 28.7 & @xmath187 & @xmath188kazf4565 - 30 & 12 36 23.7 & @xmath13025 59 10.0 & 24.0 & 32.0 & @xmath189 & @xmath190kazf4565 - 31 & 12 36 24.3 & @xmath13025 59 08.2 & 28.1 & 38.6 & @xmath191 & @xmath192kazf4565 - 32 & 12 36 25.4 & @xmath13025 58 21.7 & 6.2 & 82.0 & @xmath193 & @xmath194kazf4565 - 33 & 12 36 25.4 & @xmath13025 58 33.2 & 14.1 & 74.0 & @xmath195 & @xmath196kazf4565 - 34 & 12 36 25.5 & @xmath13025 58 36.1 & 17.3 & 72.9 & @xmath167 & @xmath197kazf4565 - 35 & 12 36 25.9 & @xmath13025 58 47.6 & 28.7 & 68.1 & @xmath198 & @xmath199kazf4565 - 36 & 12 36 26.1 & @xmath13025 57 26.6 & -25.9 & 127.8 & @xmath200 & @xmath201kazf4565 - 37 & 12 36 26.1 & @xmath13025 58 42.2 & 27.3 & 74.1 & @xmath202 & @xmath203kazf4565 - 38 & 12 36 26.6 & @xmath13025 58 08.4 & 8.7 & 103.2 & @xmath175 & @xmath204kazf4565 - 39 & 12 36 26.9 & @xmath13025 58 00.8 & 6.1 & 111.2 & @xmath205 & @xmath206kazf4565 - 40 & 12 36 27.4 & @xmath13025 58 16.0 & 21.5 & 105.5 & @xmath177 & @xmath207      kazf5907 - 1 & 15 15 40.1 & @xmath13056 20 03.8 & -96.7 & -64.6 & @xmath208 & @xmath209kazf5907 - 2 & 15 15 46.7 & @xmath13056 19 50.9 & -51.8 & -29.7 & @xmath210 & @xmath211kazf5907 - 3 & 15 15 46.9 & @xmath13056 21 14.8 & -15.2 & -105.1 & @xmath212 & @xmath213kazf5907 - 4 & 15 15 47.3 & @xmath13056 21 31.3 & -5.6 & -118.8 & @xmath214 & @xmath215kazf5907 - 5 & 15 15 47.7 & @xmath13056 20 52.8 & -18.5 & -82.4 & @xmath216 & @xmath217kazf5907 - 6 & 15 15 49.1 & @xmath13056 20 28.0 & -18.3 & -55.0 & @xmath179 & @xmath218kazf5907 - 7 & 15 15 50.0 & @xmath13056 20 03.1 & -22.3 & -29.4 & @xmath198 & @xmath219kazf5907 - 8 & 15 15 51.5 & @xmath13056 19 28.6 & -25.5 & 7.4 & @xmath220 & @xmath221kazf5907 - 9 & 15 15 51.8 & @xmath13056 19 49.1 & -14.2 & -10.1 & @xmath222 & @xmath223kazf5907 - 10 & 15 15 52.2 & @xmath13056 20 38.8 & 9.8 & -53.6 & @xmath224 & @xmath225kazf5907 - 11 & 15 15 52.5 & @xmath13056 20 11.4 & -0.1 & -28.0 & @xmath183 & @xmath226kazf5907 - 12 & 15 15 53.1 & @xmath13056 19 01.2 & -25.0 & 37.8 & @xmath227 & @xmath228kazf5907 - 13 & 15 15 53.4 & @xmath13056 19 22.1 & -13.7 & 20.0 & @xmath229 & @xmath230kazf5907 - 14 & 15 15 54.2 & @xmath13056 20 00.2 & 8.6 & -11.6 & @xmath220 & @xmath231kazf5907 - 15 & 15 15 54.5 & @xmath13056 20 02.4 & 11.0 & -12.8 & @xmath232 & @xmath233kazf5907 - 16 & 15 15 54.8 & @xmath13056 19 39.4 & 4.0 & 9.1 & @xmath234 & @xmath176kazf5907 - 17 & 15 15 55.4 & @xmath13056 18 45.3 & -14.7 & 60.2 & @xmath235 & @xmath236kazf5907 - 18 & 15 15 55.7 & @xmath13056 19 44.4 & 12.6 & 7.8 & @xmath237 & @xmath238kazf5907 - 19 & 15 15 55.8 & @xmath13056 19 49.4 & 15.7 & 3.5 & @xmath239 & @xmath240kazf5907 - 20 & 15 15 55.9 & @xmath13056 19 28.9 & 8.0 & 22.6 & @xmath241 & @xmath242kazf5907 - 21 & 15 15 56.1 & @xmath13056 19 57.3 & 21.2 & -2.8 & @xmath243 & @xmath244kazf5907 - 22 & 15 15 57.3 & @xmath13056 19 25.3 & 17.2 & 30.9 & @xmath245 & @xmath246kazf5907 - 23 & 15 15 57.4 & @xmath13056 17 47.4 & -24.1 & 119.5 & @xmath247 & @xmath248kazf5907 - 24 & 15 15 57.6 & @xmath13056 19 10.9 & 13.4 & 45.1 & @xmath249 & @xmath236kazf5907 - 25 & 15 15 57.8 & @xmath13056 18 12.6 & -9.8 & 98.6 & @xmath141 & @xmath250      @xmath251 orientation & 29 & 24 + @xmath252 orientation & 34 & 24 + @xmath253 orientation & 36 & 26 + @xmath254 orientation & 35 & 23 + mean , dispersion & @xmath255 & @xmath256 + & & + 20% closer & @xmath257 & @xmath258 + 20% further & @xmath256 & @xmath259 +
Abstract:

Answer: we present a study of the globular cluster systems of two edge  on spiral galaxies , ngc  4565 and ngc  5907 , from wfpc2 images in the f450w and f814w filters . the globular cluster systems of both galaxies appear to be similar to the galactic globular cluster system . in particular , we derive total numbers of globular clusters of @xmath0 and @xmath1 ( where the first are statistical , the second potential systematic errors ) for ngc  4565 and ngc  5907 , respectively . this determination is based on a comparison to the milky way system , for which we adopt a total number of globular clusters of @xmath2 . the specific frequency of both galaxies is @xmath3 : indistinguishable from the value for the milky way . the similarity in the globular cluster systems of the two galaxies is noteworthy since they have significantly different thick disks and bulge - to - disk ratios . this would suggest that these two components do not play a major role in the building up of a globular cluster system around late  type galaxies .