Similarity — where it appears
Named by 5 essays across 2 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
Two numbers about the paper buy nothing about the places
A picture of n places has four freedoms, and a constraint holds only what its own blindness leaves: distances reach 2n − 3, bearings 2n − 3, the two together 2n − 2. Position is reached by neither, because nothing about how places stand to one another says where on the sheet to put them. A stated position does reach it, and two of them take the budget to 2n exactly. What the count conceals is that the extra two buy nothing: a largest picture holds six place constraints with the pins and six without, the same 7,596 of them, holding the same pairs at the same rates. The constraint system is a direct sum, and a pin is a different currency.
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 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.
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.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
CompilationDegrees of freedomEstimatorProjection identificationResidualSeamVerificationLeast-squaresSearchBearingConstraintDigitising