NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Re: Still on LOP's
From: Rodney Myrvaagnes
Date: 2002 Apr 20, 01:57 -0500
From: Rodney Myrvaagnes
Date: 2002 Apr 20, 01:57 -0500
On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 12:35:28 -0300, Trevor J. Kenchington wrote:
(Rodney: If you can explain how Sir Isaac and his
>calculus lead to a different conclusion, I'd be glad to hear it.)
>
I'll try.
A probability function P{x} must be integrated over an interval to determine
the probability of the instance falling within that interval.
The correct way to say it is "The probability of a position lying within (some
distance) (delta x) of a value for x is (whatever). In the
cases we are talking about, measurements of LOPs, the probability of it lying
within [delta x] of the MPP is higher than the probability
of it falling within that same (delta x) of any less-probable position.
The confusion in this discussion seems to come from comparing a probablity
over a zero interval with probabilities over large areas.
It doesn't work that way.
Before calculus people had a lot of trouble with that (e.g. Zeno's Paradox).
Today every car-crazy adolescent knows what
acceleration is.
HTH
Rodney Myrvaagnes J36 Gjo/a
"Curse thee, thou quadrant. No longer will I guide my earthly way by thee." Capt. Ahab
