Objective function — where it appears
Named by 26 essays across 3 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
Every projection minimises something
A projection is the solution to an optimisation problem, and naming the objective explains more than naming the family. Some objectives are exact constraints, some are least-squares fits, and one is a table of numbers a man adjusted until it looked right.
Choosing for a line, not a region
Every criterion in this subject integrates over an area. A pipeline, a railway or a coastal survey is a curve, and the projection an area criterion picks for it is not the one it should have — measurably, by a factor of five thousand.
The average of two projections
The Winkel tripel is literally the arithmetic mean of two other projections, and this site's implementation of it agrees with that mean to the last bit. Averaging beats both ingredients by 26 per cent — and it preserves conformality exactly, destroys equal-area completely, and can turn eighteen per cent of the world inside out without either distortion measure saying so.
Solving for the map instead of choosing it
Chebyshev's criterion has sat on this site since its second phase with one case it could be applied to: the spherical cap, whose answer is the stereographic projection. For any other region the site stated the criterion and stopped. It is a linear least-squares fit, and the fitted map beats every named projection over the region it was fitted to.
The aspect has three numbers, not one
The site's aspect search has swung the projection's axis through one plane for a long time, and recorded that a region whose long axis runs diagonally has its optimum somewhere that plane never reaches. Searching the whole sphere of pole positions finds 2.6 times more improvement over Japan and 3.4 over the conterminous United States.
The landscape the search walks on
The three-parameter aspect search was run and its answer recorded with a note admitting nothing proved it global. Mapping the objective finds 26 to 34 local minima for every projection and region tried, a downhill walk from a random start reaching the best of them 6 to 35 per cent of the time — and one seed from the coarse grid the search already uses reaching it in all four cases. The score is reproducible to two per cent across a sevenfold refinement; the pole it names moves 60 degrees.
Report the map, not the parameters
The aspect search was found returning the same score to 2.3 per cent from poles sixty degrees of latitude apart, which left the answer looking irreproducible. That reading assumed the disagreeing triples make disagreeing maps. They do not — the three answers agree on the distortion field to a quarter of the deformation the map already has.
The shape of the valley
An aspect search returns three numbers, two searches return triples that differ by a hemisphere, and the maps they produce agree. One cause is an exact degeneracy and the rest was called a valley and left unmeasured. Sampled densely, it is neither a valley nor a basin: a connected sheet spanning 170° of pole that splits in two at twice the best score and into thirteen pieces by 1.7 times it.
Where the valley breaks in two
A near-optimal set is one connected sheet at a loose threshold and thirteen basins at a tight one, and the transition was explained without being tested. The explanation is a prediction about region size and projection sharpness: swept over both, the threshold falls from 2.10 to 0.27 as a region grows from 6° to 30°, three projections lie on nearly one curve, and a fourth declines to join for a reason worth having.
The nearest map to an impossible request
Rung seven found that not every distortion can be asked for. It never asked what happens when one is asked for anyway — and the answer has a shape: the achievable fields are the solutions of an elliptic equation, a request is a point off that set, and the nearest point leaves a residual whose floor is the curvature rather than the size of the ask.
The first break is mostly its denominator
Three earlier measurements have fitted the near-optimal set's fracture threshold against region size and read the answer as a statement about the landscape. It is a ratio, and separating it takes one multiplication: the best score the region admits at all rises with exponent 0.92 and carries 65 to 70 per cent of the threshold's movement on three projections, while the pass's own depth falls slowly and steadily, with exponent −0.42 to −0.49.
The average was a choice of norm
Ten projections, one region, one measured quantity, and the only free decision left is how to turn a field into a number. Over the world's scale departure the ordering at the mean and the ordering at the worst case have a rank correlation of −0.04, all ten maps change position, and the exponent that produced each answer is stated nowhere.
The pooled score abandons a region
Every criterion in this subject optimises for one region. An atlas is several, and pooling their samples into one area-weighted score is what everybody does — which on Britain and New Zealand serves Britain 1.2 times worse than it could be served alone and New Zealand 125 times worse. The worst-case objective makes them equal at 33 and 59, and the cost of sharing rises with separation from 1.4 to 59.
Chebyshev's map is the best at its worst, and not on average
Chebyshev's criterion makes a conformal map's scale constant on the boundary of a region, and no conformal map has a smaller range of scale inside it. The same series, fitted instead to make the scale as nearly constant as possible over the area, is a different map on every region but a cap. On a spherical square Chebyshev's map is 8.3 per cent worse in root-mean-square, the other map's range is 16.5 per cent wider, and every map between them trades one for the other.
The map that keeps the most ground inside a tolerance
A surveyor does not want the smallest worst case or the smallest mean square. They want as much of the territory as possible within a stated tolerance of true scale and are indifferent to how far outside the rest goes. That is a third criterion, it is answered by a third map, and on a 25° square at half a per cent it keeps 64.1 per cent of the area where the mean-square map keeps 45.4 and Chebyshev's 37.0 — bought by sending a tail out to 5.6 per cent where Chebyshev's worst is 1.5.
A criterion worth using is one whose answer is not unique
Forty-two starts on one region and one tolerance give forty-two different maps, keeping from 36.98 per cent of the area to 67.50. The two starts anybody would actually use — Chebyshev's map and the mean-square map — end 27.1 points apart, which is more than the criterion buys over either of them. And the spread is widest at exactly the tolerance where the criterion is worth using at all, because both facts are the same fact: an objective with a flat top and a sharp edge has somewhere to hide answers.
The pass that fails first is not the one that was measured
Three attempts to explain why the near-optimal aspect set comes apart when it does have fitted the height of the pass between the two deepest basins. That is not the pass that fails first. At every region size the set is held together by the last near-rival to join the best placement's own basin — a basin between 2 and 19 per cent worse than the best — over ground 1.02 to 2.09 times higher than the deep pair's pass. The two passes fall at nearly one rate, −1.42 and −1.31 powers of the region's span, so what separates them is a factor, not a law.
The pass's depth belongs to the projection, and it is not a constant
Separating the fracture threshold into a pass depth and the best score a region admits raised the question of what the pass depth is. Across three projections and four latitudes it runs over a factor of 4.4, and most of that is the projection: Robinson's stays between 0.018 and 0.021 at every latitude, Mollweide's between 0.040 and 0.079. It is not a constant of anything — it falls as the region grows in ten cases of twelve — and it does not follow how much of the projection the region sees. The denominator, over the same cases, moves by half again.
Six projections have two curves, and the refusal has company
Three projections at four latitudes gave three pass-depth exponents, and the question was what sets them. Six at nine latitudes say that most of them have none to set: the Hammer's pass depth rises with what the region sees at R-squared 0.95 and Mollweide's at 0.81, Eckert IV's half-follows, and Robinson's, the Winkel tripel's and the sinusoidal's do not follow it at all. Neither candidate explanation predicts a left-out projection's exponent better than guessing the average — and the sinusoidal, once the lone refusal, is one of three.
A second clause decides the half that was already decided
A specification written as a band admits forty-two maps keeping between 37.0 and 67.5 per cent of a region. Adding a tie-break — among those, take the one whose worst departure is least — is a linear programme, and it works: it makes each of the forty-two definite. It also merges three neighbours at the bottom into one, leaves 29.1 of the 30.5 points of spread in area kept, and names a single map only at the tolerance where every map keeps everything and the first clause has stopped asking for anything at all.
One exponent names one map, and at tight bands a better one than the band usually finds
A specification written as a band keeps a count of area and throws the rest of the scale field away, which is why it had forty-two answers and why a tie-break could not name one. Written instead as the mean of |ln k| raised to a stated power, it is convex for every power from one up, and has one answer. At a band of a tenth of a per cent that single answer keeps more of the region than forty-one of the band's forty-two, and at half a per cent fewer than nine of them: the band's best answer leads it by 14.7 points there, and the band's own search started from it reaches within two points of that best. Only as the band approaches the least worst case does a large power take over.
The band names the exponent for a compact region, and not for a thin one
A tolerance band is best served by the mean departure when it is tight and by the least worst case when it is wide. Read as a fraction of the region's own least worst departure, the band decides which, and the region's size drops out: a square, a triangle or a hexagon at 10°, 25° or 40° switches from one to the other at nine tenths, and a surveyor told only that loses at most two points of area on every compact region but the degenerate cap. A thin ellipse does not switch. From six tenths upward it is served best by exponents in between, and any rule with two exponents in it gives up five to seven points there, wherever its switch is put.
Two maps and the line between them do the work of every exponent
A conformal map's log scale is linear in its coefficients, so every blend of the map that minimises the mean departure and the least worst map is itself a conformal map, available the moment the two are solved. Searched along that one line for each band, the blend keeps within 0.17 points of the best of twelve exponents on every compact region and beats all twelve by up to 1.35 on the square; it trails by 1.5 at most on the thinnest ellipse and 0.74 on four regions with a bay, where the rule of switching between the two ends gave up as much as 7.1. The family's middle members lie up to two thirds of their own departure off the line. The line does not reproduce them; it does their work.
Three maps make a plane, and the band's best map lies outside their triangle
Every conformal map whose ln k is a fixed blend of three solved maps — the p = 1 map, the least worst map and the mean-square map — is itself a conformal map, so three solved maps are a plane of them. Inside their triangle the third map recovers most of what the line between the first two gave up on thin regions: 0.63 points short of the best exponent on the thinnest ellipse, where the line was 1.48 short. But the band's best map in the plane is not between the three. On 172 of 182 regions and bands it lies outside the triangle, and it keeps up to twenty points more than any exponent; started from it, a search over all twenty-five coefficients adds about a point on four regions of five and seven on a hexagon. Its price is a worst departure up to nearly five times the least worst.
A cap on the worst departure keeps the thin regions' gain and gives back the square's
The conformal map that keeps the most of a region inside a band can sit far out in the plane of three solved maps and let its edges go to nearly five times the least worst departure. Capped at twice the least worst, the plane still matches or beats the best exponent on 69 region-and-band pairs of 91: on the thin ellipses it keeps the whole of its gain, because that gain sits in a small pocket just past the exponents' own worst departure and arrives all at once; on the square and the bays it gives most of it back, because there the gain is a ramp that runs out to four times the least worst. Under any one cap the plane still beats the exponents that cap admits, by up to eighteen points — and it can name maps that no weighting of area against worst departure would ever choose.
The class breaks were computed on the page
The three rungs below price what a reader does with a finished map. A classifier is software, it runs on the geometry it has, and the geometry it has is projected: a five-class quantile classification of one stated field puts half of the three hundred and eighty-four regions in a different colour on Mercator, and 87.5 per cent of them at nine classes.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
OptimisationVerificationRegionToleranceAspectScale factorOptimal conformalPurposeReproducibilityMinimaxConformalityDegeneracy