What Do Statistics Reveal About the Black Hole versus the Bulge Mass
  Correlation and Co-evolution?
  Observational data show that the correlation between supermassive black holes
(MBH) and galaxy bulge (Mbulge) masses follows a nearly linear trend, and that
the correlation is strongest with the bulge rather than the total stellar mass
(Mgal). With increasing redshift, the ratio Gamma=MBH/Mbulge relative to z=0
also seems to be larger for MBH >~ 10^{8.5} Msol. This study looks more closely
at statistics to better understand the creation and observations of the
MBH-Mbulge correlation. It is possible to show that if galaxy merging
statistics can drive the correlation, minor mergers are responsible for causing
a *convergence to linearity* most evident at high masses, whereas major mergers
have a central limit convergence that more strongly *reduces the scatter*. This
statistical reasoning is agnostic about galaxy morphology. Therefore, combining
statistical prediction (more major mergers ==> tighter correlation) with
observations (bulges = tightest correlation), would lead one to conclude that
more major mergers (throughout an entire merger tree, not just the primary
branch) give rise to more prominent bulges. With regard to controversial
findings that Gamma increases with redshift, this study shows why the
luminosity function (LF) bias argument, taken correctly at face value,
strengthens rather than weakens the results. However, correcting for LF bias is
unwarranted because the BH mass scale for quasars is bootstrapped to the
MBH-Sigma* correlation in normal galaxies at z=0, and quasar-quasar comparisons
are internally consistent. In Monte-Carlo simulations, high Gamma objects are
"under-merged" galaxies that take longer to converge to linearity via minor
mergers. Another evidence that the galaxies are undermassive at z >~ 2 for
their MBH is that the quasar hosts are very compact for their expected mass.
