> Get some hands on exprieence and frame the conversation as how-to-improve instead of how to slam or just win and argument, and they maybe more pople will be ready to play.
Okay, I'll mark you down as not interested in the topic from the standpoint of error analysis and we'll carry on. The idea that we can't answer the problem as posed without holding a network RTK rover is ridiculous on its face, as will be seen.
OK, I recognize "expected value" as a probability term of art with a definite definition. For nicely shaped distributions, it would coincide with the peak of the distributions. "Most probable value" is not a term of art that I recall or can find in handy texts; unless it is a term used in textbooks I haven't encountered, one could quibble about what it means.
As a practical matter, 0.003 ft., (nominally 1mm) is the least significant unit of distance for nearly all purposes of land surveying (meaning boundary surveying). A distance such as 125.31415978 ft. has no meaning beyond possibly the first three places in the decimal, so there's not much point in dealing with a continuous probability distribution anyway. A discrete distribution with 0.003 ft. steps is for all practical purposes more than sufficient.
I made the calculation using 1,000 trials from random values with a Gaussian distribution (mean = 0, sigma = 0.02 ft.) and used the results to construct a discrete distribution with 0.003 ft. steps.
How do you know you've never got the same bad reading twice?
What is you email Mr. Schrock? I have something for you.
You can do it in a lab, but the possibility of doing it, without intention, in the field in reasonable GPS conditions is, in my opinion, not a part of this discussion.
> The way ambiguity fixing works, and the way it has to run through thousands of candidate resolutions, that would be statistically so unlikely as to bordre on near impossible. Not impossible, but remember, there are multiple epochs analyzed for each stored "shot". So one shot is really a group of shots ,so you''d ahve to get the same bad shot 6, 8 , 10, 120, 240 etc or more times depending on how you did it.
Kent
No, the thrust of what I'm saying is that the math problem is pigeon holed and doesn't reflect the total, and while I can't express the total in mathematical terms, I can qualify it with experience.
As I said earlier, your math is spot on, and I agree with the answers you're getting.