NavList:

   

Reply

I set a little exercise in [6001], to allow anyone claiming intuitional 
skills in "eliminating" or even reducing random scatter to show what he 
could do. None took up the challenge to demonstrate his prowess in applying 
any such magic, which was largely what I expected.

Paul Hirose took it up, and applied standard statistical methods to achieve 
results identical with my own, which surprised neither of us.

I promised to disclose later the four numbers, for initial altitude at T0, 
that had been prechosen, randomly, as starting-points for the four examples 
(to be then messed up by adding random scatter).

They are-
first, 34.6600º, or 34º 39.600', for which our solution, from the messed-up 
data, was less by 1.044'.
second, 76.91831º, or 76º 55.099', for which our solution was greater by 
0.345'
third, 43.1908º, or 41º 11.432', for which our solution was less by 0.128'
fourth,11.6846º, or 11º 41.073', for which our solution was greater by 
.759'.

You can see that there's quite a bit of scatter, in those four values of the 
divergence, between the initial value and the calculated solution. Just how 
much? We can square those four values, average the results, then take the 
square root, to provide the standard-deviation, the root-mean-square 
estimate of overall scatter in accuracy of the procedure. And the answer is 
0.671'. Uncannily close to the value I predicted, just based on the chosen 
scatter in the original numbers, at two-thirds of an arc-minute. That in 
itself was a bit of a fluke.

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