Cartographic Projection
every map is wrong, and by exactly how much
Concept

Distance matrix — where it appears

The table of separations between every pair of a set of places. It is the whole input to an embedding question, carries no coordinate and no projection, and is the object the impossibility of drawing a finite set to scale is stated about.

Named by 5 essays across one field — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

Also named here as embedding — the same set of essays touches all of them, so they are one junction rather than several.

The four places, and every distance between them. London, New York, Tokyo, Sydney on a Mollweide projection, with every great circle between a pair drawn. The six ground distances run from 5,570 km to 16,994 km, and they are the whole of the input to every figure in this ladder — no coordinate, no projection and no coastline enters any of them. The arcs are drawn only to say which pair each number belongs to; on this page they are curves, and on the ground they are the shortest routes.

Four cities that cannot be drawn to scale

Every impossibility in this field so far has been about a surface. This one is about four numbers: London, New York, Tokyo and Sydney have six distances between them, and no four dots on any sheet of paper have those six separations. The test is a determinant Cayley wrote down in 1841, and it comes out −3.34 × 10²³ where zero is required.

impossibility · Embedding The least error a flat picture can have, against how much sphere it spans. The same configuration of places, shrunk about its own centroid so that every bearing is kept and only the span changes, with the least worst-case relative error of the best flat picture at each size. Both axes are logarithmic. The fitted slope over the rows below ninety degrees is 2.0246: the error falls as the SQUARE of the diameter. That is Gauss's theorem arriving as a number for a finite set — curvature is a second derivative, so its first effect on a distance is quadratic in the separation — and it is why a county fits on a sheet and a hemisphere does not.

How wrong a flat picture has to be

The rung below proves no flat picture of four places is exact and leaves the size of the failure to a determinant nobody can read. Measured directly, the least error falls as the square of how much sphere the places span — fitted exponent 2.0088 — and the same exponent comes back from five different arrangements while the constant in front of it moves by a factor of seventeen.

impossibility · Embedding Every projection against a picture that is not a map. The worst relative distance error over London, New York, Tokyo, Sydney, for each projection in the library and for the best flat arrangement of the same distances. Each azimuthal member is centred on the set's own centroid, which is the fair comparison. The free picture reaches 0.63% and the best projection, Azimuthal equidistant, reaches 8.28% — a ratio of 13.17. The free picture cannot lose, because every projection's own layout was handed to the search as a starting point; what the figure measures is how much the freedom is worth, and it is worth different amounts at different sizes.

The best flat picture is not a map

A set of dots whose separations are as nearly right as separations can be made beats every projection in this collection — by a factor of thirteen on four world cities, and by eight per cent on sixteen. The collapse between those two numbers is not about cartography. It is that a picture of n places has 2n − 3 free numbers and n(n − 1)/2 distances to spend them on.

impossibility · Embedding The share of its distances a flat picture can hold. A picture of n places on a plane has 2n coordinates and is unchanged by two translations and a rotation, so 2n − 3 numbers in it are genuinely free; each distance held exactly is one equation. So at most 2n − 3 of the n(n−1)/2 distances can be right, whatever the places are and however hard the map maker tries. The share falls as 4/n: five of six for four places, thirteen of twenty-eight for eight, and 197 of 4,950 — 4.0% — for a hundred. The dashed curve is 4/n, which the count approaches from below and never crosses.

Five distances of six, and never more

A flat picture of n places has 2n − 3 free numbers and n(n−1)/2 distances, so it can be exactly right about 2n − 3 of them and no more — five of six for four places, twenty-nine of a hundred and twenty for sixteen, and 3.98 per cent for a hundred. The bound is reached by a construction with no fitting in it, and an azimuthal equidistant map spends only n − 1.

impossibility · Embedding The page's curvature is not a free parameter. The same trilateration, carried out on a sphere of stated radius instead of on a plane, with the error of the distances the construction decides rather than holds. At the radius the distances were measured on it is 5.1e-15 — exact, by construction, which is the refusal this figure exists to make. Two per cent either side of it the worst decided distance is already out by around 10%. Below 90 per cent of the Earth's radius the construction cannot be completed at all: two circles that must cross do not, and the page is simply too small to hold the places. The flat sheet is the right-hand limit, at 152%.

The escape is not a dimension

Four places that will not lie in a plane surely lie in a space — and they do not. The double-centred matrix of their great-circle distances has a negative eigenvalue, so no Euclidean space of any dimension holds them, and buying a third dimension improves the picture by nothing whatever, to fifteen decimal places. What does work is a page with curvature, and the curvature is pinned to within two per cent.

impossibility · Embedding

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

EmbeddingClosed formVerificationCayley mengerGaussian curvatureAzimuthalConstraintDegrees of freedomEigenvalueEquidistanceEstimatorGram matrix

All concepts