Talk:Global Positioning System/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Multidimensional Newton-Raphson for GPS - Can't make heads or tails of it

Do you think we could get an animated graphical demonstration of this process? --  Denelson83  02:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Let us attempt to isolate where some of the confusion lies. This will provide a first step toward providing any needed clarification. Do you find it clear down through equation (1)? If not, can you state clearly what in your opinion is not clear: RHB100 (talk) 21:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the part ending with equation (1) is clear. --  Denelson83  05:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I would rather see proper sourcing for this subsection. As it is now, it does not need clarification, but sources. Otherwise I'm sure we can safely remove the subsection as classic case of wp:original research. I have tagged the section. DVdm (talk) 22:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

References have been added to show the published equations on which this section is based. In view of the statement that it does not need clarification, the templates are no longer needed. RHB100 (talk) 00:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a start, but I don't think this is sufficient. When I said that "it does not need clarification, but sources," that means that the entire derivation (i.e. every single equation) needs to be sourced. We don't just need a source with "published equations on which this section is based", together with a source that explains Newton-Raphson. Using both sources together to produce this exposé, is still a classic case of wp:SYNTH, and thus of wp:OR, as clearly these equations do not qualify as trivial calculations (see wp:CALC). So, unless we have a single source that solidly backs the subsection, I think it will have to go.

Now, even if/when it can be properly sourced, i.m.o. this entire subsection does not belong in this article. It should be largely sufficient to write a single sentence saying that N-R can be used to calculate some equations and then point to the (single) source that does so, or that says that it can be done. DVdm (talk) 11:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you thoroughly study the references provided before making any judgement as to whether they are adequate or not. I see no evidence from your comments above that you have read the references provided. Also I suggest that you take into consideration that your lack of interest in the useful mathematics provided does not imply that all other people have this lack of interest in useful mathematics. Leaving out material that interests a small minority does grave damage. Leaving in material that may not interest a large majority does essentially no damage. RHB100 (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

DVdm, you have completely disrupted a discussion I was having with Denelson83. Denelson83 had responded to my attempt to take an organized approach to see how the section could be improved. Then you jump in and say it does not need clarification and now you are saying it does need clarification. RHB100 (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is the question: Are the equations from the article literally present in the sources? If they are not, it is very simple: they must go. Whether I am interested in useful mathematics or not, and whether I have disrupted a discussion you were having with Denelson83, is irrelevant. Either the listed equations are in a source, or they are not. I they are not, they should go per elementary policy as spelled out in wp:SYNTH, wp:OR and WP:V. So, please answer the question: are the equations from the article literally present in the sources?

What do other contributors think about this? DVdm (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you ask the question in the paragraph above indicates that you have not read the source material. This indicates that you are not qualified to make any judgement on the section. Whether you like it or not, you have got to educate yourself so as to overcome your ignorance before you are qualified to do productive work. Your comment that it is very simple is a result of your ignorance. RHB100 (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I have no access to the journal, but that is not relevant. That is why I ask you, who does have access: are the equations from the article literally present in the sources? This is a very simple question that you can answer, so please do. DVdm (talk) 06:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

This section discusses the NR solution method, which is obviously a suitable method for this application. However another unsourced method "trilateration and one dimensional numerical root finding" is mentioned, of which I seriously doubt if it is ever used in a real GPS device, as it is not extensible to more than four satellites. Perhaps that should go first. −Woodstone (talk) 14:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Wood, sure, if it cannot be sourced, it should be removed, but the fact that it is not or hardly used in a real GPS device, whereas NR is indeed extensively used, is not really relevant to the question whether the NR-exposé should remain here. The policies are clear on this: if the pack of equations does not appear in a reliable source, it is wp:OR and has no place here - Wikipedia is not a textbook (wp:NOT#TEXT). Feel free to tag or even remove the trilateration bit already. DVdm (talk) 17:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I added a reference to Bancroft's algorithm a few months ago. Prior to that time we did not have any readily viewable souce to Bancroft's algorithm. In adding this reference I stated that "Bancroft's method is perhaps the most important method of solving the navigation equations since it involves an algebraic as opposed to numerical method". No repetition of Bancroft method was provided in the GPS Wikipedia article, since the reference provided was an excelleb source, clearly explained the Bancroft method, and I did not think I could provide a better explanation. RHB100 (talk) 21:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Now I couldn't care less if the numerical methods are removed now that we have access to an excelent external document with the Bancroft method. However, these two numerical methods have at least one and possibly two advantages. One is they are somewhat easier to understand. And two they may have applications to surveying although I am not certain about this since I have limited knowledge of surveying applications of GPS. RHB100 (talk) 21:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the view of DVdm stated above that anything that is not a literal copy is original research. I think this view is based on a lack of mathematical maturity. RHB100 (talk) 21:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

So it is clear that the equations in the section do not appear in the cited sources ("These equations are based on those found in..."), and are therefore a clear cut violation of wp:original research and wp:synth. I will therefore remove them per elementary policy.

RHB100, I have left a note about your personal comments on your talk page.

DVdm (talk) 19:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Accusations that Multidimensional Newton-Raphson for GPS section violates Wikipedia policy are false

The accusations by DVdm that the Multidimensional Newton-Raphson for GPS section violates Wikipedia policy of no original research are false. I have provided two references either one of which alone provides more than an adequate source for the contents of the section. Yet DVdm has by his own admission not even read the reference on "The Mathematics of GPS" by Langley and in spite of his admitted ignorance has removed the section on Multidimensional Newton-Raphson for GPS. DVdm has made the idiotic statement that every equation needs to be sourced. There is no Wikipedia policy that requires every single straightforward, routine mathematical statement needs to be sourced. We don't need to source the mathematical statement, 2+3=5, and we don't need to source the straightforward and routine evaluation of a partial derivative. And partial differentiation is a straightforward, routine mathematical statement, which differs from the statement, 2+3=5, in the operation used.

The statements in the section, Multidimensional Newton-Raphson for GPS, are based on the reference, Numerical Recipes. The meaning of the word, recipes, is important. As applied to its usual use, cooking, it means that someone has performed the original research research to come up with a method of cooking a particular dish. The cook who uses the recipe follows the instructions in the recipe but does no original research just rote following of instructions. With regard to mathematical algorithms, the user of the recipes in a book such as Numerical Recipes does no original research but instead relies on the original research provided by the authors of Numerical Recipes. The equations provided in the section, Multidimensional Newton-Raphson for GPS, are not original research but instead rote following of the recipe found in Numerical Recipes.

Another useful reference is the section, Navigation Solution, in GPS World by Torralbas, Roberto and Alvarez Jose Manuel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RHB100 (talk • contribs) .

Please have a very careful read of wp:NOR and specially wp:SYNTH and wp:CALC. This is a classic example. The pack of equations definitely does not fall under "This policy allows routine mathematical calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age...". Indeed we don't need to source the mathematical statement, 2+3=5, but we definitely do need to source the evaluation of a partial derivative, as they may be straightforward and routine to you and me, but not to the average Wikipedia reader. That is exactly why the statement at wp:CALC is formulated the way it is. If you want to question or change some of our basic policies, this is not the place for it, so please take this elsewhere. Thank you. DVdm (talk) 09:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I also have left another personal comments warning on your talk page.

DVdm (talk) 09:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

You, DVdm, still do not display any indication that you have read the reference, "The Mathematics of GPS" bu Langley. Without bothering to check the reference provided, you have merely assumed that the Wikipedia section on Multidemensional Newton-Raphson for GPS, does not contain proper sourcing. This is highly irresponsible on your part. You should take the necessary steps to obtain the reference provided and thoroughly study it to see if proper sourcing is provided. At present you are completely unqualified to say if it is properly sourced or not. RHB100 (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The equations in the removed section do not appear in the cited sources ("These equations are based on those found in..."), and are therefore a violation of wp:ORIGINAL RESEARCH, wp:SYNTH and wp:CALC. If you want to question or change Wikipedia policies, you can take this to Wikipedia talk:Original research. As it is now, you are disrupting this article talk page. Please stop doing that.

I also have left another personal comments request on your talk page.

DVdm (talk) 22:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

DVdm, I don't see anything in your comments that convinces me that you have read with comprehension all of the cited sources. You recently said you did not have access to the journal containing one of the cited sources. How did you acquire it so quickly and what can you say about it to convince me that you have actually read and comprehend it. RHB100 (talk) 00:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

None of this matters. If the equations are in the source, they might be allowed in the article, otherwise they are original research. Since they are not in the source (("These equations are based on those found in..."), they are original research and do not belong in the article. Please do read the policies, and if you don't like them, take this elsewhere. You are disrupting this talk page per wp:TPG. Please stop. DVdm (talk) 10:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

DVdm, don't you dare accuse me of disrupting this page. You are an outright worthless liar in accusing me of disrupting this page. All of the other statements you have made in the paragraph above are lies and idiotic nonesense. The statement, "they are original research" is an outright lie and indicates a failure to understand the meanng of original research. You have shown yourself to be a dishonest person and I don't want to hear from you again. This dispute between you and me is going to have to be settled by somebody with better sense than you. RHB100 (talk) 19:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

My God, what have I triggered here? Please, cool down, you guys. --  Denelson83  21:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

You just asked for a clarification for a piece of an article, but it turned out that the section was original research. No problem, I think your inquiry was warranted, but properly sourced content should not sollicit clarification. DVdm (talk)

RHB100, I have opened an entry at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#RHB100. DVdm (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

DVdm, you have made false accusations against me as documented above. You have also accused me of entering material that was not sourced properly when in fact by your own admission you do not even have access to the journal containg the source provided. This is lack of etiquette in the extreme on your part. RHB100 (talk) 02:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

As user conduct is off topic here, I have replied at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#RHB100. DVdm (talk) 08:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

By the way, RHB100, would this by any chance be the Langley source you had in mind with this edit? I had seen and read this, but looking at the page numbers (pp 45-50) I had assumed that it was a different source than the one you cited. Is this the source? DVdm (talk) 14:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

timekeeping as civilian application

May I suggest adding a bullet point under civilian applications for timekeeping? The Precision Time Protocol page (long quotation near beginning) places PTP in the context of NTP (Network Time Protocol) and "GPS", which might be better termed "GPS-based protocols", whatever those might be. IOLJeff (talk) 21:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)