NavList:

   

Reply

Perhaps Peter will post his data after his sailing trip.

On Jan 1, 2011, at 4:33 PM, P H wrote:

> From: Fred Hebard
>
> Peter,
>
> Those are simulated data, not real data.
>
> Fred
>
> ======================================================================
> =======
>
> Fred,
>
> Would you be comfortable with a procedure that fails in the case of
> a simple (and yes, simulated) data set, for which you know a priori
> what the right answer is?  Would you trust your new calculator to
> process real data if it gave you 1+1=3 in an "artificial" test the
> first time you use it?
>
> The success with examples that I provided are necessary for the
> method to be valid; I never said it was sufficient.  You seem to
> imply that there is no value in working with simulated data.  Quite
> the opposite is true; you have to be able to get 1+1=2 (or, in this
> case, computed altitude #5 close to 14) before you can even hope to
> deal with real data with any confidence.
>
> For example, before I successfully processed real-life meridian
> transit data (long ago) and the recent ex-meridian data set, I put
> the parabolic-fitting procedure through the simplest simulated test
> of having three non-colinear points (image attached).
>
> If real data becomes available this time around, once again I'll be
> happy to work with it and make adjustments in the algorithm, if
> necessary.
>
>
> Peter Hakel
>
>
> 

   

Reply