NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Re: That darned old cocked hat
From: George Huxtable
Date: 2010 Dec 9, 21:59 -0000
From: George Huxtable
Date: 2010 Dec 9, 21:59 -0000
John Karl wrote- The flaw is you are simply counting regions, not computing the probability that the fix is in those areas. They don't all have the same probability. So it's an error in logic to assume they do. Yes, they do. Three separate observations are made, one of each star. By our prior condition, the probability of each being toward or away is 50:50. There is no correlation between them. They could have been made by three separate observers, each putting his observation into a sealed envelope, to be opened together after the event. Then the probability of any combination, of the 8 possible, is one in 8. How can it be different? George. contact George Huxtable, at george@hux.me.uk or at +44 1865 820222 (from UK, 01865 820222) or at 1 Sandy Lane, Southmoor, Abingdon, Oxon OX13 5HX, UK. ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Karl"To: Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 8:25 PM Subject: [NavList] Re: That darned old cocked hat George, The flaw is you are simply counting regions, not computing the probability that the fix is in those areas. They don't all have the same probability. So it's an error in logic to assume they do. BTW, attached is a case which clearly shows that neither the Fermat point, the center of gravity, the bisecting of the triangles vertices, or the Steiner point is located at the maximum probability (marked with an "x"). JK ---------------------------------------------------------------- NavList message boards and member settings: www.fer3.com/NavList Members may optionally receive posts by email. To cancel email delivery, send a message to NoMail[at]fer3.com ----------------------------------------------------------------