|
|
|
|
|||||
|
||||||
Subject: Re: Computing tables
From: Tony (anthonys@XXX.XXX)
Date: Fri Sep 10 1999 - 16:17:49 EDT
"Richard B. Emerson" wrote:
>
> Tony writes:
> [...]
> > > My question is directed towards knowing
> > > just how accurate the tables are in terms of identifying systematic
> > > errors (e.g., rounding errors which propigate forward through a
> > > series).
> >
> > This would be academically interesting but of little practical value in
> > marine navigation, IMO. In any event, I'll leave that to the math heads at
> > JPL/NASA/DOD who may have greater needs. :-)
>
> I'm not so sure that's the case and, in fact, that's precisely the
> reason for raising the question. I've seen a few people posting about
> using their own "homebrewed" tables and I'm asking how those tables
> are verified. Certainly one "quick and dirty" approach is to compare
> results from different tables but it's not unknown for even the pros
> to make mistakes on occasion. So, once again, I'll ask those who've
> either re-computed their own tables or otherwise adopted techniques
> using tables outside of the HO "family", how do you verify your
> tables?
Rick:
I think we need a clarification of what "tables" you have in mind. (If you've
said before I sure can't find it. Sorry.) There are so many tables associated
with the subject matter. Source tables?, resultant tables? etc. As I've
suggested
before direct comparisons to the NA seems most logical.
TIA, Tony
|