Error term — where it appears
Named by 8 essays across 3 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
Three conditions, and three prices
A matched picture needs the seat, the horizontal scale and the vertical law all at once. Each is broken alone here with the other two held, and all three turn out to be linear in the mismatch — the unforgiving case, with no margin at all. The vertical law costs a third of an arcminute on a television and eighty-four on a dome, because it is the difference between an angle and its tangent and that difference is cubic in the picture's vertical field.
One hand step each
Every classical perspective construction has exactly one step a person performs by hand, and the four constructions perform four different steps. That single difference decides everything a finished drawing can say about its maker, because the answers are identical and only the mistakes are not.
An error with two terms
Two results from machineries with nothing in common have now found the same shape. A panorama's parallax separates into a term that halves every time the frame count doubles and a term with no frame count in it at all; a silhouette's error into an excess that falls as one over the square of the view count and the area of a concavity that is the same number at four views and at a hundred and twenty-eight. Fitting both terms turns the distinction into a measurement, and pointed at seven of this collection's own laws it reads every one of them the way its own essay does.
Stepped, or measured from the zero
The same hand at the same precision, laying the same braccia off two ways — dividers walked from the last mark accumulate and grow as the square root of the count, while marks set from a common origin do not accumulate at all. The difference is not which method was used — it is where the zero is, and only the second is recorded in the drawing.
What a null result is worth in decades
The first draft of this expected a short sweep to invent a floor, on the reasoning that least squares always spends a free parameter. It does not — on exact data the fitted floor of a floor-free law comes back at three parts in a quadrillion. The failure is the other one and it is worse because it looks like a result. Over a third of a decade at one per cent noise, floors of a fifth of the first sample are still consistent with the data, and the fit reports none while telling the truth.
What a panel says about its maker
The reading assembled over this row, run against every procedure sixty times and scored — with the failures reported as carefully as the successes, because three of the five rows are refusals. A drawing names the class of error in it, not the recipe that produced it, and one procedure it never names at all.
The bias out of reach
A single-view height recovered from the cross-ratio has an error with two terms. The spread of an average of m readings falls as one over the root of m, by a fitted exponent of −0.52 over three decades. The bias does not fall at all — and it is eight microns, against a single-shot spread of six millimetres, so the two cross at 535,000 measurements. There is a floor here and no experiment anybody will run can see it.
A floor with a referent
Recover a focal length from two vanishing points and measure more points along each line. Through a pinhole the error falls from 0.34 per cent to 0.05 and the instrument finds no floor at all. Through a lens of k₁ = −0.05 it falls, turns, and rises to 0.70 per cent — because the noise the extra points removed had been partly masking the lens's bend. The floor is 0.72 per cent of the focal length, and doubling the distortion coefficient doubles it to 1.44. It is not noise and not conditioning; it is the model, priced.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
Residualinstrument limitAsymptoticsConditioningDemonstrationIdentifiabilityleast squaresPower lawProcedureRoughnessSamplingTolerance