...function

The method introduced in Sect. 2 actually mimics closely the procedure used in the "fit by eye" method.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

...aggregate

See for example the suspected intervening stellar population to the LMC suggested by Zaritskyem&emLin (1997) from a feature in the CMD. This interpretation is questioned and Beaulieuem&emSackett (1998) argue that it is actually intrinsic to the LMC. Note further that another feature identified as the RGB-bump is most likely the AGB-bump (Gallart 1998).

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

...magnitude

For example: the number counts of field SSA 22 (see Fig. 2a from Reid et al. 1997) is within the Poisson error bars in good agreement with the model predictions; their Fig. 2b however shows that too many stars are predicted by their model, i.e. 61 predicted versus 31 observed for $I_{\rm lim}=21\hbox{$.\!\!^{\rm m}$}5$;this gives $F\rm _P\!\gt\!5$, indicating that the model does not have an optimal parameter setting. It is however beyond the objective of this paper to determine which parameter(s) in their model has the culprit.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.