NavList:

   

Reply

Thanks to Paul for his thoughtful analysis of the little exercise that I set
in [6001]. I can confirm that his results conform precisely with my own, to
better than an arc-second.. Because the 9 observations were equally spaced,
I had simply taken a short-cut and averaged them.

And the scatter in the differences between those calculated answers and the
four "numbers I first thought of" (numbers which I haven't yet disclosed,
but which I'm passing, backstage, to Paul), is very compatible with the
prediction of two-thirds of an arc-minute.

It remains for anyone else who claims to be able to do better than that, and
eliminate the effects of that random scatter, to show us what he is capable
of. The opportunity is there.

What Paul's results have also shown is that it appears irrelevant, in the
circumstances of that exercise, to preordain the slope of the fitted line to
the known rate-of-change of the basic data, and one can do just as well by
allowing the software to search for its own best fit of slope, which turns
out to be very close to the true value. That evidence causes me to have a
bit of a rethink of my own views, and undermines some statements, to the
contrary, that I've made before. I wonder whether Geoffrey is thinking the
same way?

George.

contact George Huxtable at george@huxtable.u-net.com
or at +44 1865 820222 (from UK, 01865 820222)
or at 1 Sandy Lane, Southmoor, Abingdon, Oxon OX13 5HX, UK.


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Navigation List archive: www.fer3.com/arc
To post, email NavList@fer3.com
To , email NavList-@fer3.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

   

Reply