Residual — where it appears
Named by 38 essays across 6 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
Where a fit leaves residuals
Seven parameters can carry a rigid motion and a size exactly. A triangulation network is neither, so the best possible transformation between two datums leaves metres on the table — in a pattern, not as noise — and which seven parameters come out depends on where the markers were.
When a formula is not enough
National mapping agencies distribute datum shifts as tables of numbers on a grid rather than as parameters. What decides the spacing that table needs is not the size of the shift — a hundred-metre shift tabulates coarsely, and a thirty-centimetre ripple riding on it does not.
Three conditions are one too many
Two distances fix a point in a plane and a third has no freedom left to be satisfied with. Chamberlin's trimetric construction averages the three positions that satisfy two conditions each, and the spread between them — never zero anywhere, 22 km over North America, growing as the cube of the region — is the price of the extra clause.
A map does not say what it is
Every map on this site is one the site drew, from a projection it chose. Every map a reader has ever used is the other kind — a picture whose projection is a sentence in a corner, a legend, or nothing at all. The graticule is enough to recover it: fit every candidate to the crossings and rank what is left over.
Two projections that cannot be told apart
Over a small enough region every projection is the same picture, so the question is how small. The answer is not one number: two conformal projections need twelve degrees of extent before their graticules can be separated, and two projections with different anisotropy separate below one.
A local model has an order
Every georeferencing tool fits a polynomial between two coordinate systems and the choice of degree is usually made by counting control points. What it buys is an order of convergence — 2, 3 and 4, measured — and the first term an affine model cannot hold is the second derivative this ladder has spent five essays on.
What a careless copy hides
A photocopier that stretches one axis is a nuisance to remove before a projection can be identified. Removing it costs more than it looks: an affine fit absorbs the entire difference between the cylindrical equal-area projections, so Gall-Peters and Behrmann become the same picture at any size, to sixteen decimal places.
Two parameter sets, one transformation
Agencies publish seven-parameter datum transformations that differ by hundreds of metres in translation, and the usual reading is that one of them is better. Over the region either was fitted to they are the same transformation: a hundred metres of translation, re-absorbed by the rotations and the scale, moves a British coordinate by 5.6 metres and an Australian one by 193.
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.
A residual has more than one explanation
The method names a projection by fitting every candidate to a set of control points and taking the smallest residual. It has never been asked what else a small residual could be. A map drawn in the right projection from coordinates on the wrong datum leaves a residual of one part in a million — indistinguishable from noise, at every region size, because a similarity fit absorbs a datum shift almost exactly.
Where the control points are
Five rungs fit a library to a map and ask how much to trust the winner. None asks whether the parameters are recoverable at all. On control points along one parallel an equirectangular's standard parallel is not merely hard to find — it is invisible, exactly, and five hundred and twelve points on the same parallel are as blind as eight.
A coordinate is the output of a solve
Six essays measure a tape, close a traverse, spread a misclosure and reduce a chain. The coordinate that comes out of the far end is the solution of a least-squares problem, and the problem has a decision in it that is not a measurement: what to hold fixed. Change it and every coordinate moves by centimetres while not one residual moves at all.
The weights are a guess the solve believes
Choosing what to hold fixed is a decision inside the least-squares problem that no residual can see. There is a second, made more often and thought about less. Every observation enters with a weight nobody measured, the weights move the coordinates by a factor of 1.8, and the standard check on them can be made to pass by a scaling that moves nothing at all.
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 blunder the network cannot see
A least-squares adjustment has no concept of a mistake. The smallest blunder its test will find in the least-checked leg of a braced quadrilateral is 87 millimetres, and by the time it fires a station has moved by nearly ten times the accuracy the same adjustment reports for it.
The datum hides inside the projection's parameters
Six essays recover a projection from control points with the body it was drawn on taken as known. It is not known, and the fit cannot find it: a 99-metre datum shift is absorbed to 99.7 per cent on a two-degree sheet and to 85 per cent on a hemisphere, leaving eleven parts per million of the map behind.
The nearest equal-area map to an impossible request
Every number in the measurement before this one is inside the conformal achievable set, because Liouville's is the conformal condition. The equal-area set is one equation on two functions and never refuses: the same four requests are met to nine parts in a billion, and charged for in angle instead.
A rotation is not absorbed the way a shift is
A datum's rotations were expected to be the part a plane fit could not swallow. They are the part it swallows best — 93 times better than the translations over a hemisphere, and 24 times better per metre moved — and the reason is that the rotation which matters is a change of longitude, which is a symmetry of the map.
A condition imposed at points is not a condition
Every projection written as a condition is solved by imposing that condition at a finite set of samples because that is what a linear system is. With barely more equations than unknowns the residual the solver reports is 8.3 times too good — and refining the collocation twentyfold does not improve the map at all, it only makes the report honest.
The answer is a set
Fitting a projection to control points produces a best fit — one projection, ranked first, with a margin. A best fit without a spread is not a measurement, and the spread is free: a control point has a width, and every candidate whose residual is inside that width has not been ruled out. At one per cent noise a four-degree region admits ten of twenty candidates and a forty-degree one admits exactly one.
The nodes were evenly spaced
Refining an evenly collocated fit improves the solver's report and leaves the map alone. Moving the same number of nodes to the Chebyshev positions — crowded toward the corners, where a conformal map of a polygon is singular — makes the fit settle: 7.030 × 10⁻⁵ at forty-eight nodes and exactly that at every count above it, against an even fit that wanders by 43 per cent and never converges at all.
The sheet moved before it was measured
Every method of reading a projection off a map takes its control points from the sheet and assumes the sheet is the one 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.
A map with no graticule
Identifying a projection starts from 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.
The residual reports the error the fix was immune to
A fourth sight gives a four-line fit something three lines never had: a leftover. The leftover is a real measurement of the sights, and it is useless exactly where it is needed. One number computed from the four azimuths alone — before any star is observed — says how much of a common error reaches the residual, and it is 1 when the bodies stand at the quarters of the compass, where such an error moves the fix by nothing at all, and 0.004 when they are bunched within sixty degrees, where it moves the fix by two kilometres.
What another common point buys
A seven-parameter datum fit leaves a pattern rather than noise. Six per cent of the residual it reports is the transformation's own error and the other ninety-four is distortion no seven parameters can follow — so adding common points improves a term that was already small and cannot touch the one that is quoted.
A compiled map agrees with its graticule except where it was copied
A map compiled from two sheets has no single projection behind it, and its graticule cannot say so. Its coast can — not as a residual, which is a number the size of a projection error, but as a profile: the drawn coast lies exactly on the one its graticule predicts, then departs from a seam, and returns at another. The seams are found to within one point in 720, and the stretch between them names the projection it was copied from with a margin of 3.6 × 10¹¹.
What the extra unknown costs where nothing can see it
Four lines of position can estimate a common error in every sight as well as the position. The estimate is honest — three kilometres put in comes back as 2.8 — and where the residual is blind, its scatter is plus or minus thirty-one, and the fix that carries it is scattered fourteen kilometres from the ship against the biased fix's two and a half. Letting the residual choose between the two is worse than either, because a test with no power is a one-in-twenty lottery on the worse answer.
Weighted by what it disagrees with, the fix trusts the sight it leans on
With six sights and two unknowns, the residuals seem to offer a way to find the bad sight without knowing the weather: weight each line by how little it disagrees, and solve again. One step of that gives a low body almost exactly the weight its altitude would, 4.5 per cent against 4.0. Every further step walks it away. Iterated until the weights settle, the fit is worse than weighting nothing in all four arrangements tried. Where the low body stands alone in its direction it ends with six times the weight it earns, because the fix leans on its line and its residual shows only 46 per cent of its error.
A copy eased into place loses its seams before its source
A stretch of coast lifted from another sheet and dropped in rigidly leaves two sharp corners where it joins, and both of them are findable. A compiler does not work that way: they pin the ends and ease the middle until it looks continuous. Easing halves the corner within five per cent of the outline and the seams survive it — until forty per cent, where the located seam jumps from four per cent of the coast out to twenty. The source projection survives twice as far, to seventy-five. The piece goes on naming where it came from after the method has lost track of which piece it is.
A week of twilights learns what a sight is worth
One fix cannot tell how good its low sight was, but every residual of every fix is a point on one straight line whose slope is the square of the refraction share, once each is corrected exactly for its own fix's geometry. After one twilight the estimate is zero four times in ten; after a week it is within half again of the truth nearly four times in five. And the lesson is worth little: a guess within a factor of two already costs under 4 per cent of the fix, a week's estimate 1.3, and a share that changes from night to night by half again costs more than the learning buys.
A residual cannot count the pieces of a map
A compiled map does not say how many sheets went into it, and trying every count and keeping the best fit cannot tell. Seven pieces always fit better than two, because they contain them. A criterion that charges ln N for each number a piece spends recovers the true count in every trial, for one copied stretch and for two, until the digitising error reaches a thousandth of the map. AIC charges two and takes every piece it is offered. And an eased copy defeats the right criterion the other way: it is not a projection, so BIC buys pieces to explain it, three seams, then four, then six.
Tonight's residuals measure tonight's air badly and weight tonight's fix well
A week of twilights learns the typical refraction share and nothing about tonight's, and a share that changes from night to night costs more than the week buys. With the sextant's error taken from the week, one twilight's residuals estimate tonight's share alone — badly: within half again of the truth 43 times in a hundred with three bodies near the horizon, and zero 22 times. Used as a weight, that poor estimate costs the fix between two and four per cent whatever the night, so it beats the typical share once nights differ by more than half again, and a blend of the two, leaning on tonight as the nights grow more variable, beats both. A weather predictor has to explain most of the nightly change to do better.
An adjustment hides the sphere only in a strip of equal triangles
A strip computed on a substituted sphere drifts by the sphere's own stretch, 315 parts per million over forty triangles north from 45°, and an adjustment that closes it on a second base takes almost all of that away: in a strip of equal triangles what is left is the stretch less a straight line, 0.63 parts per million, a third-order bow sixty times below the noise of the old angles. A real chain is not made of equal triangles. The adjustment spreads the misclosure by how uncertain each triangle's angles are, the sphere put it in by how far north each triangle reaches, and the difference is a first-order residual that never clears the noise at any one side and that the old network's own geometry predicts exactly — so a re-observation matched against it reads the sphere at seven standard deviations.
A second tracing tells a drifting hand from a copied stretch
A hand tracing a coast drifts rather than jitters, and a drifting error is a smooth departure no projection explains — so the criterion that counted copied stretches correctly under independent noise counts four or five seams where two were made, and three or four on a coast with no copy at all. Undo the drift before fitting and every count comes back, for no copy, one and two, in every tracing. That needs the drift's correlation length from outside the coast, known to within a factor of three on the short side and much less on the long, and a second tracing of the same coast supplies it: the difference between two tracings holds nothing but the two errors, and read that way the count is right in 22 tracings of 24, and never too high.
An easing is a seam with a width, and a drifting hand hides the width
A copy eased into a compiled coast is not a projection, so a count that explains the coast in rigid pieces buys four, five or six seams for one copy. Give each seam a width — the copy blended into the host over that width, the same linear fit at every width, the width charged as one more number — and the count is two seams at every easing up to 17.5 per cent of the coast, and the width it reports is the one drawn, wherever the copy departs from the host by many times the digitising error. Where it departs by seven, the width is a guess. On a tracing made by a drifting hand the easing disappears: whitened for the drift, the rigid count already calls two seams in every tracing, because an easing as long as the drift is a stretch of drift, and its width can no longer be read until it is twice the drift's length.
Averaging tracings reads the easing, until the hand repeats itself
One tracing by a drifting hand cannot show how far a copy was eased, because an easing as long as the drift is a stretch of drift. Average several tracings and the easing stays while the drift shrinks: two tracings read the easing's width at the seam where the copy departs strongly, sixteen read it at the seam where it barely departs, and as the drift falls the rigid count starts buying pieces for the easing again while the eased count stays at two. All of that assumes each tracing drifts afresh. A hand that repeats part of its drift in every tracing leaves that part in the mean, where it sets a floor no number of tracings goes below; and a digitiser who learns the hand from the spread between tracings measures only the part that averages away, and charges the mean too little, so that both counts buy every piece they are offered.
The spread between hands charges the mean, and an office's habit hides in the sheet
One hand's tracings cannot see the part of its drift it repeats, so a mean of sixteen by one hand is charged for a third of the error it carries. Sixteen tracings by four hands carry half the error of sixteen by one, and the spread between the hands' means, divided by the number of hands, charges that mean correctly to within a fifth on every sheet from three hands on — without ever estimating how much of a hand is habit. The same spread reads a hand's share of habit from two hands of two. What it cannot read is a habit every hand in the office shares: tracings of a sheet with one are tracings of a different sheet without it, and the charge they give falls further short the more hands and tracings are added.
A known coast charges an office's habit, and a bending one takes it out
An office whose hands all share a habit leaves it in every tracing of every sheet, where the spread between hands cannot see it. One control sheet — a coast known independently, traced the office's usual way — reads the habit's size and restores the charge, if the habit is a drift. If the habit answers to the coast's own curvature, a size read on a rounder coast charges a thinner one at little more than half, but the same control read differently does better than charge the habit: its departures, set against its curvature, give a slope that is the office's own on every coast, and subtracting it leaves about one per cent of the habit in the mean. The slope also tells the two kinds of office apart. A coast that hardly bends teaches neither, and corrects worse than nothing.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
Least-squaresVerificationEstimatorProjection identificationToleranceSimilarity transformationDegrees of freedomCompilationConformalityDatumIdentifiabilityNoise