NavList:

   

Reply

No need to apologize, but you did misunderstand. I considered the
probable error distribution to be a property of the measurement, not an
after-the-fact assignment. I did make another mistake in that post,
since corrected, but that wasn't it.

On Mon, 29 Apr 2002 09:55:14 -0400, Noyce, Bill wrote:

>
>NO, NO, NO!  You can't assign the probabilities after the measurement!
>If the (assumed rectangular) distribution were of this size, then a
>number of different triangles could result, and this is only one (the
>largest possible).  Of those triangles, 25% would enclose the true
>position.  If we knew beforehand how big the maximum error was, we
>could know whether a particular triangle should be considered "big"
>(more likely to enclose the true position) or "small" (less likely to
>enclose the true position), but we've mostly been assuming the error
>distribution to be unknown (but balanced left/right).
>
>If I misunderstood, I apologize...


Rodney Myrvaagnes                                  J36 Gjo/a


"Curse thee, thou quadrant. No longer will I guide my earthly way by thee."  Capt. Ahab

   

Reply