# 1 Method

## 1 Method

In order to estimate the projected cluster shape we diagonalize the inertia tensor ($`\mathrm{det}\left(I_{ij}\lambda ^2M_2\right)=0`$) where $`M_2`$ is the $`2\times 2`$ unit matrix. The eigenvalues $`(\lambda _1,\lambda _2)`$ with $`\left(\lambda _2>\lambda _1\right)`$ define the ellipticity of the configuration under study: $`\epsilon =1\lambda _1/\lambda _2`$. Initially the galaxy positions are transformed to the coordinate system of each cluster. Then the discrete galaxy distribution is smoothed using a Gaussian kernel. All cells that have a density above some threshold are used to define the moments of inertia with weight $`w_i=\left(\rho _i\rho \right)/\rho `$ where $`\rho `$ is the mean projected APM galaxy density. This method is free of the aperture bias and we found that it performs significantly better than using the discrete galaxy distribution.

## 2 Results

Inverting a set of integral equations, which relate the projected and real axial ratio distribution, we obtain the distribution of real axial ratios under the assumption that the orientations are random with respect of line of sight. 

According to , if the inverted distribution of axial ratios has significantly negative values, a fact which is unphysical, then this can be viewed as a strong indication that the particular spheroidal model is unacceptable. In figure 1 we present the uncorrected and corrected intrinsic axial ratio distributions. It is evident that the APM cluster shapes are better represented by that the prolate spheroids (in agreement with ) rather than oblate beacause the former model provides a distribution of intrinsic axial ratios that is positive over the whole axial ratio range.