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