In article , "Phillip Helbig (undress to
reply)" writes:

In article , Dan Riley
writes:

"Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)"
writes:
The paper

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1965SvA.....8..854D

starts out "The present paper is a continuation of [1]"

where [1] is "Ya. B. Zel'dovich, Astron. Zh., 41, 19 (1964) [Soviet
Astronomy - AJ, Vol. 8, p. 13", so I'd conclude that is paper I.

Yes. It is clear that the three form a series.

Can anyone here reproduce TABLE 1 from the Dashevskii & Slysh paper
(link above)? In particular, there are two numbers in the table which
seem off by 1 or 2 least-significant digits. One case is relatively
easy to check, the other less so.

Also, what is the last column? In modern notation, rows are for the
redshift of the maximum in the angular-size distance for eta=1 (standard
distance, i.e. completely homogeneous universe) (note that Delta = 1 -
1/(1+z) or, alternatively, z = 1/(1 - Delta) - 1), the value of the
angular-size distance (in units of the Hubble length) at the maximum,
and the value of the angular-size distance for eta=0 ("Dyer-Roeder" or
"ZKDR" distance, i.e. completely empty beam between observer and
observed). The columns are for various values of Omega. The last one
is for infinite Omega, i.e. presumably the limit of the corresponding
function for large Omega. However, in the second and third rows for
this column, Omega itself appears. How can the value for infinite Omega
depend on Omega? Maybe it means an approximation for large Omega? But
that doesn't seem to make sense, since it is clear that both quantities
decrease with increasing Omega (as can be seen from the table, and also
analytically), but the formula for Omega = 10 gives values which are
larger than those in the table for Omega = 10.

Maybe one or both cases are misprints. (The numbers are the same in the
original as in the translation.)