NavList:

   

Reply

Paul Hirose writes:
>
> Finding the "best fit" simply
> requires taking a mean.

No.  Finding the best fit to a known slope involves an analysis of
each sight and the resulting grouping relative to the slope, and a
judgement of what weighting, ranging from absolute; the point on the
line, to nil; the point effectively discarded, to give that data
point, relative to the others.

> What I get, for all four data sets, are
> altitudes identical to the previous ones! (By "identical" I mean they
> agree to the .01'; I didn't write down the values any more precisely.)
> At least in this case, it seems that knowing the correct slope of the
> line is no benefit.

I remember Fred, some years ago now, showing us a lovely line of
sights he'd made that matched almost perfectly the slope over a short
period.  In such a case then a regression analysis would have given
the same result as a slope analysis.  Indeed in such a case no
analysis would have been necessary.  Horses for courses.

I block messages that contain attachments or HTML.

I have dutifully changed this to Plain Text.  Don't you tend to miss a
lot of messages that may be inappropriately formatted?

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

   

Reply