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

The minimum-distortion conformal map of an elongated region, 30° by 10°

Drawn here at the parameters it defaults to, with every essay that calls it.
The minimum-distortion conformal map of an elongated region, 30° by 10°. The conformal projection of an elongated region, 30° by 10° whose scale is constant on the boundary, which is Chebyshev's criterion, obtained by fitting eight terms of a series rather than by choosing a named projection. The scale factor runs from 0.98640 to 1.00000, a spread of 1.01379; on the boundary itself the largest departure from constancy is 2.13e-7 in the log, which is what the fit achieved and not what it was told. Each dot is an interior sample shaded by its own departure from the boundary's scale.

The conformal projection of an elongated region, 30° by 10° whose scale is constant on the boundary, which is Chebyshev's criterion, obtained by fitting eight terms of a series rather than by choosing a named projection. The scale factor runs from 0.98640 to 1.00000, a spread of 1.01379; on the boundary itself the largest departure from constancy is 2.13e-7 in the log, which is what the fit achieved and not what it was told. Each dot is an interior sample shaded by its own departure from the boundary's scale.

It is drawn by region-figure with show: "solved-map" — one member of a family of 7 figures that share a generator, so the drawing above is what that generator returns when it is asked for this one and given nothing else.

6 essays call it. Every call below passes it something, because a placement that passes nothing draws whichever member of the family the generator happens to default to rather than the one its essay argues about.

Where it is called

Changing this changes every one of these figures.

The minimum-distortion conformal map of an elongated region, 30° by 10°. The conformal projection of an elongated region, 30° by 10° whose scale is constant on the boundary, which is Chebyshev's criterion, obtained by fitting eight terms of a series rather than by choosing a named projection. The scale factor runs from 0.98640 to 1.00000, a spread of 1.01379; on the boundary itself the largest departure from constancy is 2.13e-7 in the log, which is what the fit achieved and not what it was told. Each dot is an interior sample shaded by its own departure from the boundary's scale. What each projection optimises

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 conformal map onto a square face of a cube. The spherical face of a cube carried onto its flat face by a map that is conformal everywhere — the measured angular deformation over the drawn interior is 1.63e-6°, which is the arithmetic's own floor. The rings and spokes are circles and radii on the sphere, and they cross at right angles here because that is what conformal means. The map was solved for as 16 terms of a series rather than written down: the face's edge comes out straight to 0.33 per cent of its own half-width, and that residual — not the conformality — is what more terms buy. At each corner the map behaves like ζ^0.75, so the scale factor there is infinite. The families

A conformal map onto a face

The polyhedral ladder ended owing a conformal face map, on the grounds that it needs elliptic functions. It does not: a conformal map of the sphere is an analytic function of one conformal coordinate, so the map is a power series, choosing it is a least-squares fit — and its scale factor is infinite at the corners, which is the angle deficit arriving as a singularity.

 What a solved map is, as a list of numbers. A map with no formula is a list of coefficients, and this is the list. The Chebyshev map of an elongated region, 30° by 10° has its coefficients falling by a factor of 1.5e+13 from the first to the fourteenth, so a table of a dozen numbers carries the whole projection; the conformal cube face's coefficients, marked separately, fall far more slowly because the map has a singularity at each corner. How fast this line falls is exactly how portable the map is — and neither map has a name, an inverse in closed form, or a formula anybody could quote. What each projection optimises

A map with no formula

The solved projection has no name, no formula and no closed-form inverse. It is fourteen numbers — and the rate at which those numbers fall away decides whether a map can be shipped at all: geometrically for a smooth region, and like a power for one with corners.

 Which scale fields a map could have, and which are only wishes. Liouville's equation — the Laplacian of log k equals 1/k² on the page — is the whole condition for a conformal map of a unit sphere to have a stated scale factor. The first two rows are the scale fields of real projections and they satisfy it to the differencing step. The rest are requests a designer might write, and every one of them fails — except one, which turns out to be a projection somebody already found. Asking for no distortion anywhere fails by exactly one, which is the curvature of the sphere. What each projection optimises

Not every distortion can be asked for

Six essays have written projections as conditions and asked how much freedom a condition leaves. The reverse question has never been put: a cartographer knows what distortion they want, so can they ask for it? For a conformal map the answer is a single equation, it is the Theorema Egregium in disguise, and asking for no distortion anywhere fails it by exactly the curvature of the sphere.

 The same patch, pinned six ways. Two vertices have to be held or the conformal energy has a similarity's worth of null space. Which two turns out to decide two of the three numbers reported. The median angular deformation is the same to 8 per cent across all six — that is the map. The areal spread runs from 2.68 to 7.44, so the 3.07 reported for this body was a statement about its corners. And pinning two adjacent vertices, which fixes the similarity through a very short lever, ruins the worst point without touching the median: a badly conditioned constraint pays for its scale in one corner. What the numbers refer to

The map depends on where it was cut

The previous rung solved the discrete conformal equations on a triangulated body and reported an areal spread of 3.07, then recorded that the number might belong to the patch, the boundary and the two pinned vertices rather than to the surface. It belongs to the pins: hold a different pair and it runs from 2.68 to 7.44, while the typical angular deformation does not move at all.

 Seven cuts of the same size, in different places on one body. The body's own colatitude and longitude, with the seven windows drawn on it. Each covers the same surface area to 0.24 per cent — the longitude extent is divided by sin θ and a scale is then solved per window — so their sizes are held and only their positions differ. Each is shaded by the areal spread of the conformal map solved on it, listed beside the grid and running from 1.03 to 1.36. The darker windows are the worse ones, and they are the ones over the body's lobes. What the numbers refer to

Cuts of the same size in different places

Where a body is cut decides how well it can be mapped, by a factor of ten — established with five windows of five different sizes, so *where* and *how much* were confounded and the factor could have been entirely about extent. Held to the same surface area to a quarter of a per cent, the answer survives at a factor of 1.32, and what predicts it is the curvature the window encloses.

The whole library