Re: Random points on a sphere- variance
- From: "Rusty" <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 15:23:22 +0100
"David L. Wilson" <dwilson314@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:oKSdndB8vMWWw7DeRVn-iQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>> unit area anywhere on the sphere is constant.
>
> If I understood correctly, he is after the *correlation* between azimuth
> and elevation (equivalently between latitude and longitude). Unless I am
> missing something, it is 0 but I have not had time to put together
> something that would constitute a proof.
I agree "variance of azimuth and elevation angles are related" could be
interpreted that way.
But if the pdf of azimuth is uniform and independent of elevation I think
theta and phi are statistically independent when defined in standard
spherical coordinates. Perhaps the OP could demonstrate this independence
from a simulation.
rusty
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Random points on a sphere- variance
- From: mahmud
- Re: Random points on a sphere- variance
- References:
- Re: Random points on a sphere- variance
- From: David L. Wilson
- Re: Random points on a sphere- variance
- From: mahmud
- Re: Random points on a sphere- variance
- From: Rusty
- Re: Random points on a sphere- variance
- From: David L. Wilson
- Re: Random points on a sphere- variance
- Prev by Date: Petsc: From grid to "normal" indexing
- Next by Date: Re: bounds on Raleigh quotient
- Previous by thread: Re: Random points on a sphere- variance
- Next by thread: Re: Random points on a sphere- variance
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|