NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Re: A basic sight reduction question
From: Stan K
Date: 2012 Apr 4, 19:21 -0400
Stan
From: Stan K
Date: 2012 Apr 4, 19:21 -0400
Alex,
I agree "There should be as little as possible "cases" and "exceptions"." But those are some of the most interesting points of discussion.
I agree "There should be as little as possible "cases" and "exceptions"." But those are some of the most interesting points of discussion.
Stan
-----Original Message-----
From: Alexandre E Eremenko <eremenko@math.purdue.edu>
To: NavList <NavList@fer3.com>
Sent: Wed, Apr 4, 2012 5:40 pm
Subject: [NavList] Re: A basic sight reduction question
From: Alexandre E Eremenko <eremenko@math.purdue.edu>
To: NavList <NavList@fer3.com>
Sent: Wed, Apr 4, 2012 5:40 pm
Subject: [NavList] Re: A basic sight reduction question
From my own experience in sight correction and reduction (with several different kinds of tables, with a calculator, and by hand), I conclude that the principal source of errors is BLUNDERS. (I am a professional mathematician). Researchers who investigated this confirm that this is the case with professional seamen as well. The simpler and more uniform the procedure is, less likely are blunders. (Understanding of what you are doing, is a completely separate question. It is good and useful to understand all steps). But when it comes to practice, more automatic is the procedure, less the probability of blunders. There should be as little as possible "cases" and "exceptions". Alex.
