Concept

Lower bound — where it appears

A proof that no answer can be better than a stated value, as distinct from an example achieving one. This collection makes upper-bound arguments and not lower-bound ones, so every covering number quoted here is what a heuristic found rather than what is optimal.

Named by 13 essays across 6 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

The least distortion possible over a 30° region. Scale factor along a radius of the cap, each projection normalised to unit scale at the centre. Chebyshev's criterion names the projection whose scale is constant on the boundary as the conformal map of least scale variation, and for a cap that is the stereographic projection centred on it — reaching exactly sec²(ρ/2) = 1.0718 at the rim, marked. Every other conformal projection drawn here rises past that line before it gets there. It shows an optimum rather than a comparison.

Total curvature and the scale rule

The impossibility has a size. A region covering a fraction of the sphere carries a fixed amount of curvature that any flat map must absorb, and for a circular region the least distortion any conformal projection can achieve is a closed form nobody can beat.

impossibility · Curvature
How large a patch can be treated as flat, at 10 parts per million. The smallest scale distortion any map of a circular patch can have, against the radius of the patch, on logarithmic axes. The line is straight with a slope of 2.00: the error grows as the SQUARE of the size, so a patch ten times wider is a hundred times worse. A tolerance of 10 ppm is reached at a radius of 40.3 km — 81 km across — and that is the number behind the boundary between plane surveying and geodesy.

How small is flat enough

A builder works in plane coordinates and a national mapping agency does not, and the line between them is not a convention. The unavoidable error of treating a patch of the Earth as flat grows as the square of its size, and the size at any stated tolerance is a number.

impossibility · Curvature
The radius of equal curvature, from equator to pole. The radius of the sphere that has the same Gaussian curvature as the ellipsoid does, at each latitude. On WGS84 it runs from 6357 km at the equator to 6400 km at the pole — the polar region is the flattened part of a squashed ball and is therefore the LEAST curved — so K itself varies by 1.35%. A surface whose curvature varies cannot be laid on one whose curvature does not, so no map from the sphere to the ellipsoid is faithful either, and the least a conformal one can vary in scale is 6739 parts per million.

The curvature of the Earth is not one number

An ellipsoid's Gaussian curvature varies by 1.35% from equator to pole, so the sphere is not developable onto the ellipsoid any more than the plane is onto the sphere. The spherical approximation is a projection with an irreducible cost, and the cost is 6,739 parts per million.

impossibility · Curvature
Sheets for a tolerance, from Chebyshev's bound and a covering. For each stated tolerance on the scale error, the cap radius at which the best possible conformal projection just meets it — sec²(ρ/2) − 1 = tolerance, which is Chebyshev's bound and has no fitting in it — and then the number of such caps needed to cover the sphere at the packing density a real arrangement achieves. One part in a thousand costs 1210 sheets of 403 kilometres radius. The slope is -0.989: a factor of ten in what the job will accept is a factor of ten in the atlas.

How many sheets an atlas needs

A tolerance on the scale error inverts, through Chebyshev's bound, into a sheet radius — and a covering problem turns the radius into a count. One part in a thousand costs 1,210 sheets of 403 kilometres radius, the count goes as the reciprocal of the tolerance exactly, and the projection multiplies it by anything from one to fifty-six.

choosing · Choosing
How thinly a sphere can be covered by a few equal caps. The covering density of the best arrangement of n equal caps found for each n — the total area of the caps divided by the sphere's, so a value of one would be a perfect tiling with no overlap. The horizontal line is 2π/√27 = 1.2092, the thinnest covering density of the PLANE by equal discs, which this site has used for the sphere since its first atlas essay. It is wrong in both directions: at 2 caps the sphere is covered more thinly than any plane can be, because a cap may be a hemisphere, and at every count from 3 upwards more thickly — 1.5092 at 3, and 1.3377 at 14. The ringed points are the four counts whose optimum is proved: 2 at 90.00°, 4 at 70.53°, 6 at 54.74°, 12 at 37.38°. Everything else is an upper bound from a search, drawn as one, and the bound loosens as the count rises — the search reaches the proved optimum to 3.4 per cent at these counts and has no such check anywhere else.

The sphere is not the plane at small counts

The site's atlas arithmetic multiplies an ideal sheet count by 2π/√27, the thinnest covering density of the plane. At the four counts whose optimal covering of the sphere is a theorem the plane's number is 21 per cent high at two caps and 9, 5 and 2 per cent low at four, six and twelve — wrong in both directions, and the direction changes with the count.

choosing · Choosing
Every one of the cube's 384 nets, scored. All 384 spanning trees of the cube's face graph, unfolded and scored on the total separation their cuts leave: how far apart, in edge lengths, the two copies of each cut edge end up on the page. Every one of them is a valid net — no Platonic unfolding overlaps — and they range from 11.30 to 17.97, a factor of 1.59. The heuristic of unfolding outwards from a chosen face lands on the first of them, exactly.

What the net heuristic cannot find

Choosing a net by unfolding outwards from a face beats guessing, and the earlier measurement of that left its own limit unknown. Enumerated in full, the heuristic turns out to be exactly optimal on every solid small enough to check — rank one of 384 — and above that ceiling no sample can tell whether it still is, because eight hundred random nets never reach it.

families · Polyhedral
A 6° query against a cube scheme, and the cells it fetches. The cells of a tangent-warped cube scheme at level 5, with the 29 cells a query of 6° radius touches shaded. The disc's own area is 16.84 cells; the count is 29, because every cell the disc's boundary crosses is fetched as well as every cell inside it. In Hilbert order those cells form six contiguous ranges of identifiers, which is six range scans, and the span from the lowest to the highest covers 91 cells against the 29 wanted. Drawn in Mollweide, with the mesh shown only near the query.

A query is a disc, and a disc is not a cell

Everything a cell system does is an address lookup except the one question anybody actually asks it: find everything within five kilometres of here. That is a disc, and the number of cells it fetches is not its area divided by a cell's — at the radii a query is really made at, it is three to seventeen times that.

applied · Cells
One line cannot point both ways between New York and Tokyo. The great-circle bearing from New York to Tokyo is 333.0°, and from Tokyo back to New York 25.1°. A flat picture draws one straight line between them, whose two directions differ by exactly 180°; the two bearings differ by 180° and another 127.9°. The dashed direction is the best a straight line can do for both ends at once, and it is 63.9° from the truth at each — which is a floor on the bearing error of every flat picture that contains these two cities.

A flat picture has one direction between two places, and the Earth has two

The bearing from New York to Tokyo and the bearing back are not reverses of each other: they miss by 128 degrees. A flat picture draws one line between the two cities, so no picture containing both can have a bearing error below 64 degrees. On any set of places up to about fifty degrees across, the best flat picture sits exactly on that floor — and away from the poles, so does Mercator.

impossibility · Embedding
Five bearings of four cities, held exactly. A flat picture of London, New York, Tokyo, Sydney holding five one-way bearings exactly, each drawn as an arrow from the city it is measured at: London to Tokyo, Sydney to London, New York to Tokyo, New York to Sydney, Tokyo to Sydney. Five is the most any flat picture of four places can hold, and of the 192 ways of choosing five pairs and a direction on each, this is one of eight that can be drawn with every arrow pointing forwards; all eight leave London–New York, dashed, unheld. The price is paid by the other seven bearings: the worst, London to New York, is 165.0° from the truth.

Five bearings of twelve, and only eight ways to draw them

A flat picture of four places can hold five of their twelve one-way bearings exactly, the same count as distances, and the five are found by solving equations rather than searching. The equations cannot tell a line from its reverse. Of the 192 ways to choose five, eight can be drawn with every arrow pointing forwards, all eight leave London and New York unheld, and on sixteen cities no choice made at random can be drawn at all.

impossibility · Embedding
Four cartograms of one density. The same stated density — four cities — met four different ways, drawn on the same cells. Every panel is a correct cartogram of the same numbers: a region's page area is proportional to its mass in all four. They do not look alike, because the areal scale factor fixes one number per point and a map has four derivatives, so three degrees of freedom per point are left over and each construction spends them differently.

Every density can be met and none is free

Four maps of the same data, all of them correct, charging between 57.6° and 104.4° of angular deformation for it. There is no such thing as the cartogram of a density — there is an infinite family, and somebody picked a member of it without saying so.

distortion · Cartogram
Beside a bending river, the fan's chords cross water; a route drawn from the river's own outline never does. Everywhere within a 10 km walk of the centre, shaded pale, with a river 3 km north meandering ±2.0 km on a 4 km wavelength and bridges every 2.5 km. Left: the polygon 16 bearings draw, with the ground it claims and should not in solid ink — chords spanning the bends. Averaged over where the first bearing falls, it misses 35.0% of the true ground and claims 0.15% that is not there. Right: every point reachable by a route with at most one crossing — straight out, or straight to a bridge and straight on — worked out from the river's outline and the bridges alone, with no fan and no shortest path. It misses 6.4% and claims nothing.

A reach set drawn from the river's outline is a bound again

Beside a bending river, a fan of bearings drawn with straight chords claims a strip of water, and the drawing stops being a lower bound. The fan's own numbers cannot repair it: what a bearing records about the river is where the bridges are, not where the bends are, and the best a rule built from them does is cut the over-claim by seven eighths while giving up twenty times as much ground. The river's outline repairs it exactly. Cutting each bearing at the first bank costs three and a half times the over-claim it removes; keeping the chords wherever a route over one bridge reaches costs one and a half. Drawn from the outline and the bridges with no fan at all, that route set misses 6.4 per cent of the reachable ground where the fan misses 35.

paths · Reach
Beside a bending river, every reachable point is reached by a route that meets the bank at most three times. Everywhere within a 10 km walk of the centre, beside the stated river meandering ±2 km on a 4 km wavelength with bridges every 2.5 km, shaded by the fewest times a shortest route to it has to meet the bank — a contact being one run along the bank, however many corners it passes. 70.3% of the ground is seen from the centre across dry land. One contact reaches 28.0% more, 85% of it beyond the river and the rest in bays of the near bank hidden from the centre by a spur; two reach 1.18% and three the last 0.47%, 70% of those two beyond the river, in the lee of the far bank's bends beside the outer bridges. Nothing needs a fourth.

A layer is a meeting with the bank, not a corner turned

A reach set drawn in layers — rays from the centre, then from every place a route can leave the bank — ends in the exact answer, and how deep it must go depends on what a layer is. Counted by corners turned, the depth belongs to the polygon the bank is drawn as: five turns on a bank drawn every 400 metres, eighteen on one drawn every 50. Counted by meetings with the bank, it is three at every resolution. One meeting anywhere leaves 1.6 per cent of a ten-kilometre walk unreached, where rays from the bridges alone leave 6.4; two leave 0.47; three leave nothing. A longer walk needs more — up to six meetings at twenty kilometres across thirty-six rivers — and the bend's steepness, which prices the first layer, ranks the depth at 0.24.

paths · Reach
Two maps of one density: one costs nothing and one costs forty-four degrees. Both drawings meet the same areal request — an exponential ramp of contrast 79.8 to one, whose logarithm is harmonic — to arithmetic noise. The first is a conformal map written down in closed form, the conformal map that meets an exponential ramp, log-harmonic, whose angular deformation is 2.4e-8 degrees. The second is the triangular construction the previous rungs use, at 43.8° on the same request. A grid of squares is drawn through each: the first keeps every angle and the second does not.

The cheapest map that meets its areas

An earlier essay bracketed a cartogram's least cost between a construction charging eighty degrees and a bound valid only for symmetric densities, and recorded the gap as a shortfall. One request settles it: a density of contrast eighty whose least cost is exactly zero, met by a map written down in closed form, while the standard construction charges 43.8° for it.

distortion · Cartogram

Named alongside it

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

Spherical capToleranceChebyshev's boundOptimisationVerificationAngular deformationAreal factorAzimuthBarrierBearingBoundaryCartogram

All concepts