Anonymous user
Talk:Haversine formula: Difference between revisions
respond to Eliasen
(SIgned. I thought I did but the captcha boned me.) |
(respond to Eliasen) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 1:
I find it interesting that there are two 'clusters' of results around 2886.4 and 2887.26
Line 84:
2892.776957 km
--[[User:Eliasen|Eliasen]] ([[User talk:Eliasen|talk]]) 07:35, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
: But at that point you're no longer using the Haversine formula. The task is not to compute the most accurate distance possible between two points on the surface of the Earth. -- [[User:Markjreed|Markjreed]] ([[User talk:Markjreed|talk]]) 22:38, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
: Additionally, these implementations are very close. The [[Haversine_formula#bc|bc implementation]] with WGS84 ellipsoid¹ is guaranteed to have less than ¼% of error (0.21877% from your given number). This is “good enough” for something this easy to port to various programming languages that might not have enough functionality to support the “better” maths. 【¹) Though I switched to the Astronomical Almanac 2021 radius of i=6378136.600, x stays the same, in my “current” version, which is supposedly more precise. It’s very very close to WGS84, still.】 [[User:Mirabilos|mirabilos]] ([[User talk:Mirabilos|talk]]) 01:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
| |||