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

Margin — where it appears

How much worse the second-best candidate is than the best. It is the quantity that separates a real identification from a forced one, and a systematic error common to every candidate destroys it while leaving the winner's residual small.

Named by 3 essays across one field — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

The same ranking, with the right answer removed from the library. A map drawn in Mercator, fitted by every candidate except Mercator. Something still wins: Conformal conic, by a factor of 1.64 over the runner-up, leaving 0.4 per cent of the map's width unexplained. With Mercator in the library the winner's margin is 1.2e+13. The ranking always produces a name; what tells the two situations apart is how far ahead the name is.

When the answer is not in the library

Fitting twenty candidates to a map and ranking the residuals always produces a winner, which makes it a ceremony unless it can also produce a refusal. Held out of its own library, a Mercator map is named as a conformal conic, leaving 0.4 per cent of the map's width unexplained — and the quantity that tells the two situations apart is not the residual but the margin, which is 1.6 when the truth is absent and 10¹³ when it is present.

wrong · Identify What a sheet does to the points before anybody measures them. The graticule crossings of a map drawn on Conformal conic, with an arrow at each one showing where the same crossing has moved to after the sheet dried — 0.1 per cent along the grain and 0.4 across it, with the grain at 23° to the map's axis, and the displacement magnified 60 times so it can be seen at all. The pattern is a stretch along one direction and a squeeze along the perpendicular, which is what an anisotropic scaling looks like. It is a property of the paper and has nothing to do with the map printed on it. A similarity fit to these points leaves 3.66e-4 of the map's own width unexplained, against 1.22e-10 on the unshrunk sheet.

The sheet moved before it was measured

Nine rungs take control points off a map and assume the sheet they came from is the sheet the cartographer drew. Paper shrinks across its grain three times as fast as along it, and on a map whose grain runs along its own axis that shrinkage is EXACTLY a change of standard parallel — one per cent moves the recovered parallel by 0.57 degrees with the residual sitting at the solver's floor.

wrong · Identify The whole of what an unlabelled map gives you. The outline of Japan as drawn on Conformal conic, delivered as an ordered list of page positions with nothing attached to any of them. No latitude, no longitude, no scale, no north. The rung's question is whether a projection can be recovered from that, and it can: the correspondence between the ink and the ground is found by sweeping the starting point round the curve and both directions, and the true candidate comes back with a residual of 2.88e-14 against the runner-up's 4.57e-4.

A map with no graticule

Ten rungs are handed control points, and a great many maps have none. Handed an outline with no labels on it at all, the method still works — and works better: the correspondence between ink and ground is recoverable exactly, because a similarity preserves ratios of arc length, and the margin on clean observations is 1.6 × 10¹⁰ against a graticule's 9.9 × 10⁶. What breaks it is noise, at three parts in a thousand.

wrong · Identify

Named alongside it

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

ResidualToleranceVerificationAffineControl pointsDegeneracyEstimatorIdentificationReproductionSimilarity transformationAssertionAudit

All concepts