text:
Typecasting

In film, television, and theatre, typecasting is the process by which a particular actor becomes strongly identified with a specific character, one or more particular roles, or characters having the same traits or coming from the same social or ethnic groups. There have been instances in which an actor has been so strongly identified with a role as to make it difficult for them to find work playing other characters.

Character actors
Actors are sometimes so strongly identified with a role as to make it difficult for them to find work playing other characters. It is especially common among leading actors in popular television series and films.

Star Trek
One example of typecasting occurred with the cast of the original Star Trek series. During Star Trek's original run from 1966 to 1969, William Shatner was the highest-paid cast member at $5,000 per episode ($0 today), with Leonard Nimoy and the other actors being paid much less. The press predicted that Nimoy would be a star after the series ended, and James Doohan expected that appearing on an NBC series would help his post-Star Trek career. The series so typecast the actors, however—as early as March 1970, Nichelle Nichols complained of Star Trek having "defined [her] so narrowly as an actress", and Doohan said in 1976 that even producers he worked for before Star Trek now told his agent "I don't want a Scotsman" —that only Shatner and Nimoy continued working steadily throughout the 1970s, and even their work received little attention unless it was Star Trek-related.

Walter Koenig in 1976 noted the disparity between the adulation from Trekkies at Star Trek conventions and his obscurity in Hollywood. Residuals from the series ended in 1971; Koenig, Doohan, and DeForest Kelley discussed the paradox of starring in what Kelley described as "the most popular series in the world" because of reruns, but "not getting paid for it". Cast members' income came mostly from personal appearances at conventions; by 1978 Kelley, for example, earned up to $50,000 ($0 today) annually. In 1979, the first of six films starring the cast appeared; Kelley earned $1 million for the final film, Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991).

Parade stated of the cast, "They are 'stars' only in the world of Star Trek ... [They] lost control of their destinies the minute they stepped on the bridge of the make-believe Enterprise in 1966", and The New York Times observed in 1991 that "For most of the actors in the original "Star Trek" series, Starfleet has never been far off the professional horizons." Being identified so closely with one role left the series' cast with mixed emotions; Shatner called it "awesome and irksome". Koenig called it "bittersweet ... People are interested in Chekov, not me", but admitted that there was "a certain immortality in being associated with Star Trek". Doohan said that being part of a "classic" was "beautiful. Your great-grandchildren will still be seeing Star Trek".

Some of the Next Generation actors also became typecast. Patrick Stewart recalled that a "distinguished Hollywood director I wanted to work for said to me 'Why would I want Captain Picard in my movie?' That was painful". His most prominent non-Star Trek film or television role, Professor X in the X-Men film series, shares similarities to Jean-Luc Picard. Stewart has stated "I don't have a film career. I have a franchise career"; he continues to work on stage as a Shakespearean actor. The Next Generation had one of the largest budgets of its time, and the cast became very wealthy. Jonathan Frakes stated that "it's better to be type-cast than not to be cast at all." Michael Dorn said in 1991, "If what happened to the first cast is called being typecast, then I want to be typecast. Of course, they didn't get the jobs after 'Trek.' But they are making their sixth movie. Name me someone else in television who has made six movies!"

Other examples
John Larroquette said that after winning four consecutive Emmy Awards, "it was 10 years after Night Court ended before I got a role as a dad. Because Dan Fielding was such a bizarre character, he had made such an impression, that typecasting does happen. Every role was some sleazy lawyer or some sleazy this or some sleazy that." During his years on the comedy Married... with Children, Ed O'Neill's scenes were cut from the film drama Flight of the Intruder (1991) after a test audience laughed when he was on the screen.

Jon Hamm stated that after the success of Mad Men, he received "about 40 scripts that were all set in the 60s, or had me playing advertising guys" like his character Don Draper.

Clayton Moore, who played the Lone Ranger in the Golden Age of Television, embraced his typecasting, stating that he had "fallen in love" with the character of Lone Ranger, and regularly appeared in public in character, to the point that Jack Wrather, who owned the character, issued a cease and desist order to Moore in 1979. The dispute was dropped in 1984 and Moore resumed his appearances. In a similar case, Alan Hale Jr. parlayed his fame as Skipper Jonas Grumby on Gilligan's Island into a seafood restaurant and a travel agency that offered three-hour boat tours.

Jonathan Frakes' sentiments about typecasting were echoed by Ben McKenzie, who became a star in the role of Ryan Atwood in The O.C. at age 24, after two years of seeking acting work in New York City and Los Angeles. Eleven years later, after starring in two more television series playing what The New York Times described as a "quiet, guarded leading man", McKenzie said that "if you are being stereotyped, that means you have something to stereotype. So they're casting you. That is an amazing thing. That is a gift. Worry about being pigeonholed in your 50s."

Daniel Radcliffe was cast as Harry Potter at age eleven, playing the character over ten years in an eight-film franchise. Radcliffe was thus faced with two transitions: moving from child actor to adult star and moving from being typecast as Potter to playing other roles. His career following the Harry Potter franchise has included appearing on stage, as in Martin McDonagh's The Cripple of Inishmaan; in independent films such as Kill Your Darlings, in which he played Allen Ginsberg; and major studio films like Victor Frankenstein, in which he played the hunchback Igor, and romantic comedies like What If.

Peter Robbins largely left acting after aging out of his most famous role, the voice of Charlie Brown. He retained a strong affection for the role throughout his life, including having a tattoo of the character.

Historical-real characters
Soviet actor Mikheil Gelovani depicted Joseph Stalin in 12 films made during the leader's lifetime, which reflected his cult of personality. Among them were The Great Dawn (1938), Lenin in 1918 (1939), The Vow (1946), The Fall of Berlin (1950) and The Unforgettable Year 1919 (1952). These films were either banned or had the scenes featuring Stalin removed after the 1956 Secret Speech. Following Stalin's death, Gelovani was denied new roles since he was so closely identified with Stalin. According to The Guinness Book of Movie Facts and Feats, Gelovani had probably portrayed the same historical figure more than any other actor. Die Zeit columnist Andreas Kilb wrote that he ended his life "a pitiful Kagemusha" of Stalin's image.

Playing against type
Some actors attempt to avoid or escape typecasting by taking on roles that are opposite the types of roles that they are known for.

 * Pat Morita was known for his comedic roles in his early acting career, particularly as Arnold in the American TV sitcom Happy Days. The casting directors of The Karate Kid (1984) were initially opposed to casting Morita as Mr. Miyagi, due to Morita's background in comedy, as well as it being a more serious role.
 * Jackie Chan was originally known for playing heroic and physically comedic roles in action and adventure films across over three decades. He was cast against type for a serious role as a Chinese immigrant opposite Pierce Brosnan as a corrupted Irish politician in the 2017 thriller The Foreigner, for which Chan garnered critical acclaim.
 * Bryan Cranston had originally played the immature, childish character Hal on Malcolm in the Middle. When Vince Gilligan approached the AMC about his plan to cast Cranston as the morally dubious Walter White in Breaking Bad, the network was opposed to his casting in light of his previous comedic work.
 * Tom Cruise was typically known for playing heroes before director Michael Mann cast him as an amoral hitman in Collateral (2004).
 * Tony Curtis was known as "Hollywood's most handsome matinee idol"; as such, he was cast against type when he played serial killer Albert DeSalvo in The Boston Strangler (1968).
 * Matt Damon was at first best known for his dramatic performance skills, as showcased in Good Will Hunting (1997), before being cast against type as the action hero Jason Bourne in the Bourne films.
 * Christian Bale was offered the role of Patrick Bateman in American Psycho (2000). People warned him that playing this role would be a career suicide . He said, "A lot of people would talk about Anthony Perkins in Psycho and say, you know once you play a villain like that, you never get to play anything else because you're stuck in everybody's imagination as that person." Bale however, went on to play the role and it turned out to be a breakthrough film for him, cementing his status as a mainstream performer. Similarly, when he was offered the role of Batman in Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins (2005), he was warned that he would be forever known as only Batman and would have trouble getting roles. The Dark Knight Trilogy turned out to be a blockbuster and Bale's performance was appreciated. Since then, Bale has starred in critically acclaimed films, including The Fighter (2010) and The Big Short (2015), earning Academy Award nominations for both of them, winning for the former.
 * Henry Fonda, best known for playing morally upright, everyman heroes, was cast by director Sergio Leone to play a sadistic villain in the Western Once Upon a Time in the West (1968). Film critic Roger Ebert argued that much of the principal cast in Once Upon a Time in the West were cast against type: "Fonda is the bad guy for once in his career; Charles Bronson is impressively inscrutable as the mysterious good guy; and Jason Robards is a tough guy, believe it or not."
 * Ice-T, who achieved fame as a gangsta rap artist early in his career, garnered critical acclaim for his subsequent acting roles as police detectives in New Jack City (1991) and Law & Order: Special Victims Unit.
 * Gordon Jump, often typecast as milquetoast characters such as Arthur Carlson on WKRP in Cincinnati, took on the role of a child molester in the very special episode "The Bicycle Man" on Diff'rent Strokes. Jump considered the role "one of my most painful but rewarding parts," and the casting against type was noted as a standout moment in Jump's career.
 * Michael Keaton had previously starred primarily in successful feel-good comedies before director Tim Burton cast him as Bruce Wayne / Batman in the dark action-drama Batman (1989).
 * Matthew McConaughey, who, after making several romantic comedies, sought other, more dramatic film roles. He appeared in a supporting role in The Wolf of Wall Street and starred in Interstellar and Dallas Buyers Club, receiving critical acclaim in all three films and winning the Academy Award for Best Actor for the latter. This change in the direction of his career has been dubbed the "McConaissance", and is considered a remarkable career turnaround.
 * Glenn Milstead had almost exclusively performed as a woman under his drag queen persona, Divine, performing mostly in the works of John Waters. In 1985, he appeared in what would his be his only male role in Trouble in Mind, a role written for him but against his usual drag type. A second male role in Married... with Children was never filmed, as Milstead died after rehearsals but before taping.
 * Leslie Nielsen had an established career as a dramatic actor since the 1950s before appearing in the successful comedy film Airplane! (1980), specifically due to the gravitas he was able to bring to the satire. This prompted a career reinvention that saw Nielsen go on to helm the Police Squad! series and The Naked Gun trilogy. Reflecting on his against-type casting, Nielsen later stated that he always felt more comfortable as a deadpan comedic performer and embraced being typecast in that style the rest of his life.
 * George Peppard was typecast in "tough-guy" film roles following his portrayal of a young playboy and megalomaniacal tycoon in the 1964 film The Carpetbaggers. His career as a traditional leading man had been fading at the time by 1983, when he accepted the lead role in the TV series The A-Team, as the wisecracking, cigar-smoking head of a team of wanted commandos. Peppard stated he had wanted to transition into character actor roles but had never been given the opportunity until The A-Team.
 * Tyler Perry is a comedian best known for his comedy. He was cast against type as Tanner Bolt, a lawyer who specializes in defending men accused of killing their wives, in Gone Girl (2014).
 * Bob Saget began his career as a particularly vulgar stand-up comic. In the late 1980s, he was cast against type on television as the squeaky-clean Danny Tanner on Full House, which led to him also hosting the family-friendly America's Funniest Home Videos. Despite his new reputation as "America's Dad" from these roles, Saget maintained his vulgar stand-up routine for the rest of his life and played the contrast between the two types for laughs, which is credited with keeping his appeal fresh among the young adults (millennials) who watched him as children.
 * Adam Sandler is best known for his comedy roles, in which he typically plays an "aggressive man-child" and an "extreme character surrounded by regular people." Director Paul Thomas Anderson cast Sandler in a dramatic role in Punch-Drunk Love (2002), as a man facing psychosis who goes "from understated sorrow to rage and back again." He again returned to serious work in The Meyerowitz Stories (2017), with Peter Debruge of Variety writing of his role, "With no shtick to fall back on, Sandler is forced to act, and it's a glorious thing to watch."
 * While James Stewart was known for his "affable" everyman roles, such as a businessman and father in It's a Wonderful Life, in Alfred Hitchcock's Vertigo (1958), he was cast against type as a "troubling or unsettling" character whose "mind unravels" until he attains a "cold, chilling air of sexual paranoia and control."
 * John Wayne, known for playing heroic cowboys/lawmen, played antihero Rooster Cogburn in True Grit (1969). Wayne was cast against type several times in his career, including as Genghis Khan in The Conqueror (1956).
 * Betty White, known for playing the sexually liberated Sue Ann Nivens on The Mary Tyler Moore Show, and Rue McClanahan, who had been known for playing scatterbrained characters such as Vivian Harmon in Maude and Fran Crowley in Mama's Family, were cast in opposite types in The Golden Girls: White played the naïve Rose Nylund, and McClanahan played sultry Southern belle Blanche Devereaux. Bea Arthur, for whom the lead role of Dorothy Zbornak had been conceived, was initially reluctant to join the cast, thinking that the typecasting would prompt viewers to see White and McClanahan as simply continuing their previous roles, but the "flip-flop" casting of the two types, and the originality of the show's premise, convinced her to sign on to the project.
 * Robin Williams, a successful comedian and situation comedy actor, was cast against type in Insomnia and One Hour Photo (both 2002), two films in which he depicted "spine-chilling psychosis" and insanity.
 * Chris Evans' first real success as an actor came by playing a series of character he has called "jocky pricks": good-looking but mean-spirited men known for their smugness, in films including Fantastic Four (2005), Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (2010), and What's Your Number?. Evans has commented, "I got cast as a lot of assholes." He was then cast to play the iconic Captain America, a character that since his introduction in 1940, had exhibited "uncompromising purity" and the "ability to judge the character in others". After fulfilling a seven-picture contract with Marvel Studios to play the character, which ended with Avengers: Endgame (2019), Evans returned to playing villainous characters in films such as Knives Out (2019), The Gray Man (2022), and Pain Hustlers (2023).
 * Robert Downey Jr. was known as a critically acclaimed actor, getting nominated for Academy Awards for his role in Chaplin and Tropic Thunder. Then he played Tony Stark / Iron Man in the Marvel Cinematic Universe for 11 years from Iron Man (2008) to Avengers: Endgame (2019). Downey Jr feared that he might lose his acting skills by playing the same character for a decade, saying, “You start to wonder if a muscle you have hasn’t atrophied”. Post leaving MCU, Downey starred in Christopher Nolan's Oppenheimer, as Lewis Strauss, getting critical acclaim for that role and won an Academy Award.
 * Jim Carrey, notable for starring in comedies like Liar Liar (1997), Dumb and Dumber (1994) & Ace Ventura: Pet Detective (1994), played against type in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004) where he plays a bookish introvert.
 * Emma Watson, notable for playing Hermione Granger in Harry Potter series, normally has an image of a good girl. However, she went against her image in The Bling Ring (2014), where she played Nicki Moore, a brash and a self-obsessed fame-seeker, for which she got critical acclaim.
 * Heath Ledger was only known for his lighthearted or romantic roles in films like 10 Things I Hate About You (1999), A Knight's Tale (2001), and Brokeback Mountain (2005). When he was cast as the psychopathic criminal mastermind Joker in The Dark Knight (2008), it was met with a significant public backlash. However, after the movie released, Ledger's performance received widespread critical acclaim, to the point that it has been termed as one of the greatest performances ever. Ledger posthumously received the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor in the 81st Academy Awards for his role as the Joker.

title: Typecasting


text:
User:Daeron/Explanation

Expectations vs. Reality
I am writing this page to explain why West Papua has been mis-understood and mis-represented.

We all have romantic ideals that we hope our governments can live up to; but the truth is that all governments will do whatever they believe is in it's best interest at the time. And in many affairs they relay upon the advice of others who claim to be neutral experts in their field.

Examples:
 * Aust. government talked into what is now known as the 'Stolen Generation' policy. An awafull thing, but the experts of the day said it was the best thing for the children involved.
 * A number of US State governments were talked into eugenics programs, unthinkable today, but their experts assured them it was the best thing for the nation.

And in both cases, nobody wanted to know about it. The victims in Australia didn't get their voices heard until 60 years after despite their being every government record about it all; the public just didn't want to believe. In the US, the same thing, victims who'd been sterilized in the 1950's where still mostly unknown of in the 1980's.

Some people will repress the information because they don't believe it; even the Govt.'s own records only mean its something these people don't want others to believe, so they act accordingly. And maybey that's what's motivating Wik and John to vandalise the West Papua article. But that they are vandalising and removing vital key elements, that they are trying to dis-credit the truth is a fact.

West Papua
The US was worried about the Soviet Union in the 1960's, they really did believe in the Domino Theory. The US President probably had no idea that his 'experts' were far from neutral when the West Papua issue arose, that they had invested a decade of their time in Indonesia before the Kennedy administration came into power;, they would rather a million black people lose their independance; than risk over ten years work in Indonesia by not supporting their claim. The US Govt. and the JFK records both confirm that the President believe it was in his nations best interest.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User:Daeron/Explanation


text:
Rudy Wiebe

Rudy Henry Wiebe (born 4 October 1934) is a Canadian author and professor emeritus in the department of English at the University of Alberta since 1992. Rudy Wiebe was made an Officer of the Order of Canada in the year 2000.

Early life
Wiebe was born at Speedwell, near Fairholme, Saskatchewan, in what would later become his family's chicken barn. For thirteen years he lived in an isolated community of about 250 people, as part of the last generation of homesteaders to settle the Canadian west. He did not speak English until age six since Mennonites at that time customarily spoke Low German at home and standard German in church. He attended the small school three miles from his farm and the Speedwell Mennonite Brethren Church. In 1947, he moved with his family to Coaldale, Alberta.

He received his B.A. in 1956 from the University of Alberta and then studied under a Rotary International Fellowship at the University of Tübingen in West Germany, near Stuttgart. In Germany, he studied literature and theology and travelled to England, Austria, Switzerland and Italy. In 1962, he received a Bachelor of Theology degree from Mennonite Brethren Bible College in Winnipeg, now Canadian Mennonite University.

Career
While in Winnipeg, he worked as the editor of the Mennonite Brethren Herald, a position he was asked to leave after the publication of his controversial debut novel Peace Shall Destroy Many (1962), the book that heralded a wave of Mennonite literature in the decades that followed.

Wiebe taught at Goshen College in Goshen, Indiana from 1963 to 1967, and taught at the University of Alberta in Edmonton for many decades after that.

In addition to Peace Shall Destroy Many, Wiebe's novels include First and Vital Candle (1966), The Blue Mountains of China (1970), The Temptations of Big Bear (1973), The Scorched-wood People (1977), The Mad Trapper (1980), My Lovely Enemy (1983), A Discovery of Strangers (1994), Sweeter Than All the World (2001), and Come Back (2014). He has also published collections of short stories, essays, and children's books. In 2006 he published a volume of memoirs about his childhood, entitled Of This Earth: A Mennonite Boyhood in the Boreal Forest. His work has explored the traditions and struggles of people in the Prairie provinces, both settlers, often Mennonite, and First Nations people.

Wiebe won the Governor General's Award for Fiction twice, for The Temptations of Big Bear (1973) and A Discovery of Strangers (1994). Thomas King says of The Temptations of Big Bear that "Wiebe captures the pathos and the emotion of Native people at a certain point in their history and he does it well ... Wiebe points out to us that Canada has not come to terms with Native peoples, that there is unfinished business to attend to." Wiebe was awarded the Royal Society of Canada's Lorne Pierce Medal in 1986. In 2000 he was made an Officer of the Order of Canada. In 2003 Wiebe was a member of the jury for the Giller Prize. In 2023 Guernica Editions published, Rudy Wiebe: Essays on His Works edited by Bianca Lakoseljac which includes 20 articles devoted to Wiebe.

Personal life
In 1958 he married Tena Isaak, with whom he had three children.

Awards

 * 1973 Governor General's Award for Fiction for The Temptations of Big Bear
 * 1994 Governor General's Award for Fiction for A Discovery of Strangers
 * 2007 Charles Taylor Prize for Of This Earth: A Mennonite Boyhood in the Boreal Forest
 * 2009 Honorary Doctor of Letters from the University of Alberta

Novels

 * Peace Shall Destroy Many, McClelland & Stewart, 1962
 * First and Vital Candle, Eerdmans, 1966
 * The Blue Mountains of China, Eerdmans, 1970
 * The Temptations of Big Bear, McClelland & Stewart, 1973
 * The Scorched-Wood People, McClelland & Stewart, 1977
 * The Mad Trapper, McClelland & Stewart, 1980
 * My Lovely Enemy, McClelland & Stewart, 1983
 * A Discovery of Strangers, A.A. Knopf Canada, 1994
 * Sweeter Than All the World, Vintage Canada, 2002
 * Come Back, Penguin Random House, 2015

Short stories

 * Where is the Voice Coming from?, McClelland & Stewart, 1974
 * Alberta, a Celebration (with Harry Savage and Tom Radford), Hurtig Publishers, 1979
 * The Angel of the Tar Sands and Other Stories, McClelland & Stewart, 1982
 * River of Stone: Fictions and Memories, Vintage Books, 1995
 * Another Place, Not Here, Knopf Canada, 1996
 * Collected Stories, 1955–2010, University of Alberta Press, 2010

Nonfiction

 * War in the West: Voices of the North-West Rebellion (with Bob Beal), McClelland & Stewart, 1985
 * Playing Dead: A Contemplation Concerning the Arctic, NeWest, 1989
 * Stolen Life: The Journey of a Cree Woman (with Yvonne Johnson), Alfred A. Knopf Canada, 1999
 * Of This Earth: A Mennonite Boyhood in the Boreal Forest, Vintage Canada, 2007
 * Extraordinary Canadians: Big Bear. Toronto: Penguin Group Canada, 2008

Plays

 * Far as the Eye can See: A Play, NeWest, 1977

Children's literature

 * Chinook Christmas, Red Deer Press, 1993
 * Hidden Buffalo, Red Deer Press, 2003

title: Rudy Wiebe


text:
User:MacGyverMagic/Venomous snakes

''This discussion has been copied from the Reference Desk on May 7, 22:40 GMT. Additional info was added on May 10.''

Venomous snakes
To my fellow Wikipedians, I'm researching a piece of fiction and stumbled upon a problem. I need to find info on a venomous snake, its venom highly neurotoxic to humans, causing death in about 5 seconds (preventing someone from making a quick defensive move). The catch is: this particular snake needs to handled by a skilled herpetologist and temporarily put in a briefcase - so its size is limited. Also, I'd like the signs of poisoning to be minimal, besides the bite marks. I have no clie where to start. Can anyone point me to some relevant info?

Rest assured, I'm not intending to handle snakes or use them to kill someone. - MGM 12:24, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't know very much about snakes but I believe that even the most dangerous kill with in hours rather the seconds. (well they kill their prey much more quickly but a rat is a lot smaller than a man) I don't know of any snake that can kill within seconds. What about man made poisions. There are plenty, I think many of the cyanide typew compounds would work. theresa knott 13:34, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

 * In Kill Bill, author Quentin Tarantino uses a black mamba for this purpose. It is the fastest moving land snake, and has fairly fast-acting venom.  (in the movie the speed was perhaps slightly unrealistic, but hey, it's fiction) -Anon

 * Yes poetic licence is a wonderful thing. According to this web site at U of C San diego 30 - 120 minutes is a more realistic timing. theresa knott 19:47, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, in the movie, it could have been that much time. Half an hour is certainly within the time frame of the movie.  Two hours might be stretching a bit. --WhiteDragon 14:59, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Perhaps this explains why real assassins rarely use poisonous insects, venomous spiders, sawmill blades, runaway trains, burning ropes suspending heavy objects, or teenage japanese girls with katanas, but stick instead to a prosaic diet of bombs, rockets, and particularly guns. The "mercenary" manual for the ancient Traveller role-playing game gave sage advice in killing people.  Despite technological innovations, it said, the easiest way to kill someone is to inject their body with a large amount of kinetic energy, ideally imparted by a large chunk of metal moving at speed. -- Finlay McWalter |  Talk 20:00, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

 * The fierce snake produces the most toxic venom of any snake. LD-50 is 0.025 mg/kg . Trouble is, there are no recorded deaths. All recorded bites to date have been snake handlers, who generally have some anti-venom handy. The Black Mamba venom has a toxicity of 0.32 mg/kg. Unfortunately readily-available toxicity data isn't particularly closely related to kill time. Hydrogen cyanide, when injested, has a toxicity of about 1 mg/kg, but kills much faster than snake venom. Perhaps you should pick some exotic snake that nobody has ever heard of, and claim it kills in 5s. -- Tim Starling 02:20, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

Are we decided on snakes? I think there are types of sea creatures that are more poisonous - what about the Blue-ringed Octopus, or the Pufferfish? Mark Richards 03:12, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Hmmm, for some reason whenever people talk about poisonous animals, the discussion turns to Australian native wildlife. Blue-ringed octopuses aren't particularly dangerous, they take many hours to kill and even then I don't think they kill 100% of people. Pufferfish aren't really dangerous unless you eat them. No, if you wanted a truly dangerous poisonous sea creature, the obvious choice would be the Box jellyfish. They can kill in half an hour or so, fast enough that the victim might not be able to get medical attention. -- Tim Starling 01:56, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

 * Please keep discussing, your ideas so far have been great...- MGM 19:38, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

 * I just remembered some information about snake bites that I learnt in school. In most cases, the snake venom is not injected directly into a blood vessel. Instead it's picked up by the lymphatic system. Unlike the circulatory system, material is moved by a ratchet effect, with help from gravity and muscle movement. The huge majority of snake bites are to a limb. Applying a pressure bandage to the affected limb, immobilising it with a splint or similar, and keeping the patient still can slow progression of symptoms by a large factor. I heard on the weekend about someone dying from a Black Mamba bite in a couple of minutes, because he sprinted away to get help. If the snake bit a person and by chance struck an artery, and the person had a very high heart rate at the time, perhaps death could occur in seconds. -- Tim Starling 02:31, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

There is a "mini" box(a few centemeters in diameter) jellyfish which is small, nearly invisible, and at least as deadly as the larger box jellyfish. Also, botulism toxin is the deadliest chemical on the planet.

title: User:MacGyverMagic/Venomous snakes


text:
Talk:Transverse Mercator projection

Question
Anybody can contribute an image of a world map in UTM? --Lev 19:44, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Metric systems and maps within the UTM zones
I am working on systems producing generalised maps (presence/absence and density maps) based on the metric system in UTM-zones. This is fine as long as your data is from within one UTM-zone. But when the data extends over more than one zone several problems occur:

 * how should we have a continous square system
 * how can we keep our precision good enough

The solution on my side is to leave the UTM-based squares and continye by using a system based on longitudes and latitudes. Since it today is quite easy to calculate the square areas of any lon/lat square system density calculations is not a problem.

I would like to have some discussions on this matter on the page describing UTM-sones. What are the shortcomings when it comes to making maps based on UTM-zones...

sample coordinates
please provide some sample coordinates and their latitude/longitude equivalent. Funkyj 06:57, 2005 July 31 (UTC)

nm
Nanometers or nautical miles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.40.45.79 (talk) 09:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Major rewrite
I have prepared a major rewrite of the Transverse Mercator page. The current contents are imbedded within the introductory outline and the first two sections. A new feature is the discussion of the properties of the transverse projection by contrasting them with the normal Mercator. There are two new large sections discussing the derivation of the spherical transverse mercator and a presentation of the formulae for the ellipsoidal transverse mercator. I have called these appendices to head off the casual reader. However I do feel that the mathematics should be up on Wiki even if it is accessible to few readers. If this proposal meets approval (or disapproval) please leave your comments on this page. Please do not edit the proposed page (in my user space) until it is moved up to this page --- if it does! At that stage I would appreciate editing of typos, errors, improvements to the text etc. Checking the maths is more problematic; all I can say is that the formulae come from a pdf article on mercator projections which has been checked by others. The proposed article is here, Peter Mercator (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

 * I'm very happy with this rewrite. It is wonderfully detailed. I have not checked all the formulæ, but those I looked at were correct. I would note Ensager and Poder's series development, also. (Engsager, K. E., and K. Poder, 2007 Aug., “A highly accurate world wide algorithm for the transverse Mercator mapping (almost),” in Proc. XXIII Intl. Cartographic Conf. (ICC2007), Moscow, p. 2.1.2.) Strebe (talk) 20:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

 * This article increasingly diverges from good Wikipedia practices in the amount and scope of material. It is way too long, and the disparity between the information needed by a casual reader and the minutiæ of series computation is too great. Any number of series developments have been published. They do not belong in this article. Each should be broken off into separate articles, as well as any others people wish to detail. The article needs to get back to the fundamentals of the transverse Mercator. Strebe (talk) 20:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

More formulas for meridian distance and Transv Mercator
In 1983 Bowring published (Bulletin Geodesique) formulas for meridian distance that seem to be correct within 0.001 millimeter but are at least as simple as the usual series expansion. I'll add them, unless copyright doesn't allow?

In 1989 he published (Survey Review) formulas for lat-lon to transv-Merc and back; I believe he estimated they were correct with half a millimeter over an 8-degree longitude band, but maybe I'm misreading that. They're simpler too; should I add them to this article? Tim Zukas (talk) 22:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

 * Tim, Greetings. A few comments on your mods. Can you add the precise reference for Bowring? I'll look at it next month. Parameter 'n' is already defined above: no need for definition in terms of r, which you haven't defined. I prefer to to write 1/f instead of r, (f=(a-b)/a). The method is neat and I don't think it's easier! It's also probably much slower to compute because of the fractional power of a complex number.  Overall it is much more complicated. Precision is not a problem with the series for they can be extended trivially to higher terms.
 * There are literally dozens of approaches other than Redfearn's and if you want to add more on Bowring go ahead, but possibly include all the stuff together in a new major section under his name. I was going to add another such section on the 'other' Kruger series which are much more accurate than the lambda expansions. My email is accessible through the link 'email this user' on the left panel of my talk page. Peter Mercator (talk) 22:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

 * As I recall the Bowring article was page 372-- I'll check. (Page 374, it turns out.)

 * Perhaps I should make it plainer that "n" is the same in Bowring's formulas as everywhere else in the article. I included the definition in terms of r since a and r are the two defining parameters of some spheroids (including WGS84, I think; far as I know the r I gave for it is exact).

 * (Is f a defining parameter for any spheroid?) Tim Zukas (talk) 00:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

 * I know of no datums for which f is a defining parameter rather than 1/f. I do not care for r; I know of no literature that uses it. It is always notated as 1/f. Strebe (talk) 06:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I copied Bowring's formula wrong-- it's fixed now. (I left out the factor (1 - (3/8)n^2) in Z.) Tim Zukas (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

 * I do not think Bowring’s formulæ belong in this article. There are many developments for the meridional distance, and the meridional distance is only one component of the full development of the projection. One could imagine alternatives for every step of the development. Meanwhile the section states that it presents Redfearn’s development, not Bowring’s or Krüger’s or Thomas’s or Karney’s. I suggest a much better place for this is a new article describing the meridional distance on the ellipsoid. Strebe (talk) 03:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

 * "the section states that it presents Redfearn’s development, not Bowring’s..."

 * True enough-- which is implicit in the dates of their formulas, but I'll make it explicit. Once you have the meridian distance you can proceed with the rest of Redfearn's formulas.

 * Looks like Redfearn's series for meridian distance need the terms in $$n^4$$ to give millimeter accuracy-- I haven't confirmed that yet, but I'm working on it. The series probably have to go thru $$n^5$$ to match Bowring's accuracy. (Edit: the last two sentences are probably wrong; the formulas as given might give millimeter accuracy, and with the $$n^4$$ terms they might even match Bowring's method. Tim Zukas (talk) 20:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)) Far as I'm concerned Bowring's formula is too useful to ignore here, even if it does rate a separate article as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim Zukas (talk • contribs) 20:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

 * By the way-- weren't Redfearn's series for meridian distance based on $$e^2$$ rather than $$n$$? If so, even less reason to object to substitution of another formula. Tim Zukas (talk) 21:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

 * I’m afraid my objections are only increasing. “…seem to be correct within 0.001 millimeter” sounds a lot like original research, and “a useful improvement on the truncated versions of Redfearn's series given above” definitely is— not to mention very likely wrong. Do you not understand that the article is about the transverse Mercator, and not about the meridional distance? What is the point in providing greater accuracy to the meridonal distance when the greater accuracy does not show up in the results of the transverse Mercator calculation because of later truncations? Redfearn didn’t truncate his series earlier because he was lazy or too stupid to go further; he truncated them at the correct places needed to achieve the accuracy he targeted. This is all looking very much out of control and irrelevant to the transverse Mercator. Please step back, take a deep breath, and reconsider. Strebe (talk) 00:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Further comments. Perhaps, in creating the current version, I should have stressed that I had chosen the Redfearn/Thomas formulae because they are the basis of several practical implementations of the TM projection, eg UTM, OSGB, Australia and others; they are also the basis of the many web coordinate converters. I intend to tackle the UTM page and link to this page in a detailed way. As such the use of alternative versions does not make sense, even if they are more accurate, for their use would lead to values in disagreement with published data. Both Redfearn and Thomas calculated to higher orders before dropping terms which were smaller than their design criteria (1mm accuracy). The eighth order terms in the meridian distance are proportional to 0.03sin8\phi mm. The highest neglected terms in OSGB are of less than 1mm in northings and eastings. Note that modern develpments of TM (Podor, Karney) which may replace the present UTM etc are orders of magnitude more accurate and Bowring's formulae would be completely inadequate.

I agree that the Bowring formulae would be better in a separate article covering all aspects of meridian distance. I can envisage a page covering the history of meridian measurements, mentioning the Greeks, Newton, Cassini; the arcs in Finland, Peru, France, India etc; the relation of arc meaurements to reference ellipoids; and formulae of all kinds. Could be an interesting page but it would overlap a little with articles such as Figure of the Earth, Reference ellipsoid and Datum; these should be treated as a group. Peter Mercator (talk) 10:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

 * Here's the meridian-distance-formula comparison, on the GRS80: first figure is distance in millimeters as given by Redfearn's truncated series, second is the decimal part of the actual distance, third is the decimal part of Bowring's.

 * 15 deg: 1658989589 .3432.34767.34735
 * 22.5 deg: 2489167311 .0967.08445.08406
 * 30 deg: 3320113397 .8651.84501.84464
 * 45 deg: 4984944377 .8373.85798701.85798698
 * 60 deg: 6654072819 .3617.36744.36781
 * 75 deg: 8326937587 .2164.17234.17265
 * 90 deg: 10001965729 .1298.2304570923.2304570914

 * Tim Zukas (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

 * The first figure in the above comparison is "distance in millimeters as given by Redfearn's truncated series", which was the series shown in this article at the time. Anybody want to do the comparison for the series that's in the article now? Tim Zukas (talk) 18:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

 * I see there is already a page on meridional length: meridian arc. Bowring’s material belongs there, not here, as per the discussion. I have removed this material as extraneous to Redfearn’s method. Strebe (talk) 00:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Bowring's formulas are now together in a separate section. He also gives formulas for scale factor and convergence, but probably nobody has any need for those? Tim Zukas (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

 * I have at last had a chance to study the Bowring meridian paper. The formulae he presents are based on the n^4 series given earlier in this article. He first degrades the series by altering the last term so that he can force the series for m into a fairly a simple form: F(1+Gn exp(2i\phi))^N where F,G,N are determined by a comparison of coefficients. He then rewrites the result in terms of the reduced latitude and then rewrites it again as the complex expression quoted by Zukas. The final result is less accurate than the power series in n (to fourth order). The motivation for this rewriting is to shorten the length of the calculation of m. Modern computing power makes this a futile endeavour.

 * The projection equations are, as pointed out below, no more than a rewrite of the fourth order Redfearn series after dropping at least two of Redfearn's terms and applying Schodlbauer's principle to (slightly) improve the range of validity. (I checked in detail only the series for the easting (x) but the same tricks are used in all four series).

 * My contention is that the Bowring papers are no more than Redfearn disguised and as such they offered nothing new in the 1980s and are even less useful today, now that higher order exact solutions avalable. As I mentioned below, I doubt whether Bowring series were ever used but I'm open to contradiction by a single reference. (Consult, for example, the paper by Stuifbergen[ http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/337182.pdf]; he proves that O(n^4, e^8)  series for m is satisfactory. This paper will be discussed in my proposed new sections outlined below).The Redfearn formulae, despite their limitation to 1mm accuracy over a narrow range,  will continue to be of importance whilst they remain in the definitions of OSGB, UTM, Geotrans etc.

 * For all the above reasons I propose that the Bowring material be deleted. I do not even think it warrants a page of its own. Peter Mercator (talk) 21:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

 * I cannot find a single academic citation of Bowring nor any implementation actually in use. I do not see how the material could meet Wikipedia’s requirement of “notability”. Strebe (talk) 23:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

An easy improvement: more spacing
Compare the readability of the formulas in the sections on Bowring's "Newer Formulas for the Ellipsoid" as of 23:24 on 10 Sept 2010, and then as of 01:05 on 11 Sept, after the formulas have been scrunched together. Clearly, with the additional spacing between them the formulas were easier to comprehend-- probably they should have still more spacing. So what is the objection to added white space? Does it cost somebody something, or does it wear something out faster?

(No doubt the formulas in the other sections of the article would likewise benefit from a bit more white space, but I'll leave that to their authors.) Tim Zukas (talk) 22:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it is a matter of browser rendering. On Firefox/Macintosh, these new edits of yours leave too much whitespace, much more than any article or convention I have seen. It’s jarring and does not provide adequate material in a single view. Strebe (talk) 16:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

 * You're right, I did the editing in Int Expl and Firefox does expand it vertically 10-15%, which is too bad-- so we have a choice between Firefox giving a bit more white space than needed, or IE showing the formulas as a discouraging jumble. You would like "adequate material in a single view" (meaning "all the formulas on one screen with no scrolling"?); I'd say that would be nice if the sequence of formulas were short enough to permit it, but if it isn't short enough then readability takes priority over eliminating scrolling. (If the readers have made their way thru the rest of the article they must be used to scrolling.) How's it look to everyone else? Tim Zukas (talk) 17:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

 * "...too much whitespace, much more than any article or convention I have seen." I might be using less white space than the typical printed journal. Compare the layout of the formulas in Vincenty's article http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/PUBS_LIB/inverse.pdf . They're not trying to fit everything onto one page, nor should they. Tim Zukas (talk) 18:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

 * It is not a matter of fitting “everything” on one page; it is a matter of seeing a satisfying density of information. Vincenty does not support your position, insofar as my browser renders the transverse Mercator article and Acrobat renders the PDF article. The Vincenty paper is normal. Firefox, Chrome, and Safari render the Redfearn maths well but give way too much whitespace to the Bowring material. I tried IE 8 on Vista, finding the Redfearn material a little cramped, but also still finding the Bowring material too sparse vertically.

 * I have to think this matter has been debated ad nauseam on Wikipedia talk pages, given how much mathematics appears in articles. We should defer to Wikipedia normal practices. I do not see important articles devoting so much whitespace to formulæ. Strebe (talk) 20:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

 * We agree the Vincenty article is normal, and it has a full linewidth of white between most of its equations. You may well be right that "Wikipedia normal practice" is to put formulas too close together, so that the reader's eye has to hack its way thru the thicket to make out the sequence of formulas that the reader hopes to follow-- lessee, this formula needs nu, where's that-- need epsilon for that, where's the formula for that-- but consistency isn't everything. Tim Zukas (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

May I had my opinion on the white space: it is horrendous. Lots of material could be chopped out of here. Laying out Latex is an art which is easy to get right when fixed in pdf form (see my latex in ref 13) but is very difficult on web pages. I have many comments to make on the Bowring section. (a) It should point out that it is derived from Redfearn and offers no improvement of accuracy. (b) Shorter formulae are not an essential requirement today with the availabilty of modern computers. (c) The method isolates the spherical terms and rewrites them in terms of the exact TM on sphere terms. This is an important point and should be made clearer. It would be better if theta4 and theta5 (spherical terms) were placed directly into the formulae following. (d) Notation. It isn't necessary to explain a,b,k_0,phi,m again in this section. (e) 'r' is completely superfluous and numerical values are not helpful in a 'general' discussion. Bowring could be applied to any ellipsoid. (f) epsilon should be given its usual name. (g) Reduced lat should be named where defined. (h) Stick to x,y as projection coords. E,N make sense only after discussing grid conventions. It also helps comparison with other series. (i) Use lambda rather than omega to assist comparisons. (j) High accuracy m is irrelevant when truncation errors are almost 1mm. Bowring also references less accurate formulae for m. (Moreover evaluation of m from an elliptic integral can be carried out to arbitrarily high accuracy). (k) There is no such thing as a trillionth of a metre in SI units. (l) 'real coefficient of the imaginary part' is nonsense. Normal maths simply writes this as Im(z) so that one has theta=psi-Im(Z). (m) Finally. Has anyone ever used these formulae? I suspect not. Peter Mercator (talk) 23:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

 * "(a) It should point out that it is derived from Redfearn and offers no improvement of accuracy."

 * None is claimed.

 * "(b) Shorter formulae are not an essential requirement today with the availabilty of modern computers."

 * Agreed they're not "essential".

 * "(c) The method isolates the spherical terms and rewrites them in terms of the exact TM on sphere terms. This is an important point and should be made clearer."

 * If the reader is unaware of the important point, how will he be prevented from using the formulas?

 * Bowring is untested in the literature. I doubt there is anything wrong with it, but it certainly seems a lot of space, time, and discussion is devoted to a formulation that, after all, delivers little over the classical, well-analyzed, deployed implementations. Bowring does not meet Wikipedia’s requirements for notability, yet a huge chunk of the article is devoted to enticing the reader to use the formulation. Peter Mercator seems hostile toward its inclusion, and, after poking around a lot and seeing the massive expansion in article size (also a violation of Wikipedia guidelines), I too am opposed. Series formulations should be moved out into separate articles, if they warrant inclusion at all.

 * Addressing your question more specifically, it is particularly wrong to direct readers to a formulation whose only purpose is to arrive at numbers, devoid of pedagogical value, when the purpose of the encyclopædia is pedagogical and when the method being purveyed has no notability. It simply seems tendentious. If readers cannot even compare the Bowring formula to Redfearn because the notation differs and important correspondences are not noted, then there is no pedagogic value at all. It belongs on some other website. People can search the Web wonderfully easily these days. Strebe (talk) 01:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

 * You seem to be saying Redfearn's method is pedagogical, and notable, and Bowring's is not. It will be impossible to explain why Redfearn's formulas (the formulas themselves, as given here) are more pedagogical; if it's pedagogy you want, we could always include Bowring's derivation (or Redfearn's?) but few others will be interested. Comparing "notability" sounds tough too; we'd have to say Vincenty's 1975 formulas for geodetic distance are less "notable" than Rainsford's 1955 formulas, wouldn't we? But Rainsford would likely be the first to agree that Vincenty's formulas are the ones that belong on Wikipedia.

 * Is Redfearn still around, by any chance? Would be nice if we could ask him which formulas he now prefers. Any reason to think he'd prefer his? Tim Zukas (talk) 00:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

 * No, I am saying being able to compare approaches is pedagogical. Second, it’s not hard to compare notability here: I can’t find a single citation of Bowring. I can find plenty of Redfearn. Vincenty versus Rainsford is irrelevant here, but part of the job of editors is to come to a consensus about notability, so if there were some reason one needed to be chosen over the other, one would be chosen. And lastly, Redfearn’s and Rainsford’s opinions aren’t encyclopædic, and therefore would be irrelevant even if we had them, so I don’t understand where you are going with that. Strebe (talk) 02:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

 * In "What Wikipedia Is Not", it says "Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter." So as far as I can see your objection to lack of pedagogy is backwards-- pedagogy is just what Wikipedia doesn't want. Just the facts, ma'am. Wikipedia wants the reader who hopes to learn how to use Transverse Mercator coordinates to be able to find the necessary formulas in the article; Wikipedia wouldn't prefer a more pedagogical set of formulas, even if there were any reason to think Redfearn's formulas were more pedagogical than anyone else's.

 * ("No, I am saying being able to compare approaches is pedagogical." You mean comparing Redfearn's approach with Bowring's? You're saying the article should contain both? The article would be even better with more approaches?)

 * I looked up "Notability"-- it refers to the topic, not the content of the article. Wikipedia wants to know, Is an article on Transverse Mercator justified? Is the topic Notable? Once it's been decided that yes, it is, then Notability is no longer an issue, and we don't need to waste time trying to decide whose formulas are more notable than whose. Tim Zukas (talk) 16:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

 * I hate to break it to you, but facts are pedagogical. “Having pedagogical value” ≠ “reads as a textbook”. I did not advocate “…creating or editing articles that read as textbooks, with leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples,” which is Wikipedia’s explanation of “not a textbook”. Try searching on "consistent notation" within the site:en.wikipedia.org to learn how often this is discussed and resolved in favor of consistent notation. Consistent notation is part of presenting facts effectively. With your interpretation, it would be our duty to go sabotage anything that might help anyone learn anything as long we leave just the facts alone.

 * With apologies for using alternative terminology, how about you look up “prominence”?“…Fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view.” Bowring has no prominence.

 * Lastly, no; my advocacy is plain: Neither series should be presented on this page. I know Peter Mercator is preparing to move Redfearn elsewhere. If he does not remove Bowring at that time, then I will. You are welcome to move it to some other article, of course, though that one would likely suffer from a “notability” problem. Strebe (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

 * "facts are pedagogical"...okay, sounds like you have fortunately discarded your earlier objection to "direct[ing] readers to a formulation whose only purpose is to arrive at numbers, devoid of pedagogical value, when the purpose of the encyclopædia is pedagogical". We're agreed that whatever pedagogy is, each set of formulas has enough of it, for Wikipedia anyway-- so no need to worry about that any longer.

 * "Neither series should be presented on this page." So you propose a "Transverse Mercator" article with no formulas, and a separate article "Formulas for the Transverse Mercator" (which will not repeat the explanation of the nature of the projection?). The former has little use except as an introduction to the latter, so hard to see how they're better separate. You figure Wikipedia prefers that one long article be split into two articles adding up to a bit more length? Even tho the table of contents of the long article immediately directs readers to whatever they need?

 * It's true, of course, the article needs pruning; if we're worried about length, the best plan would be to move the formulas for the ellipsoid to a separate article, but include the necessary explanation of the projection-- then call that article "Transverse Mercator" and dump this one. Tim Zukas (talk) 20:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

 * The formulas you talk about are truncated series. They are not the definition or description of the transverse Mercator; they are merely different ways of approximating it out of a theoretical infinite number. Dozens of such series and variants of them are extant in different national and regional projection systems. No, I am not advocating a separate article to hold all of the different formulations of the transverse Mercator, and I cannot imagine how you came to that conclusion. I’m advocating a separate article for each notable (prominent?) usage. There are several reasons for that: The article is too long; the “implementations” generally do not even go by the name “transverse Mercator”; and details of the implementations do not add to the “facts” about the transverse Mercator itself, which is supposed to be the topic of the article. At some point the closed-form representation needs to get added to the main article; they are the formulæ that belong in it.

 * …sounds like you have fortunately discarded your earlier objection to "direct[ing] readers to a formulation whose only purpose is to arrive at numbers, devoid of pedagogical value, when the purpose of the encyclopædia is pedagogical" That again does not follow, since you do not bring the context of the discussion into your comments. I did not object to the inclusion of Redfearn even though its only purpose was to arrive at numbers. I objected to the inclusion of a second set of formulas whose only purpose was to arrive at about the same numbers when the reader could not even readily compare the two formulations because their notations differed. Strebe (talk) 22:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

 * "It would be better if theta4 and theta5 (spherical terms) were placed directly into the formulae following."

 * Bowring kept them separate; I'm guessing most people who compare the alternative layouts will agree he was right.

 * "(d) Notation. It isn't necessary to explain a,b,k_0,phi,m again in this section."

 * No, we can always make the reader hunt them up. Taking up five extra lines to give the reader all the info he needs is indeed wasteful.

 * "(e) 'r' is completely superfluous..."

 * See the new section, below.

 * "(f) epsilon should be given its usual name."

 * Bowring used epsilon; what's the point of switching?

 * "(g) Reduced lat should be named where defined."

 * That definitely falls under the heading of "Interesting info for those who are interested in such things, but if you just want the essentials, you don't need this." You agree the formulas will work fine without the interesting info?

 * "(h) Stick to x,y as projection coords."

 * British National Grid and US State Plane Coords use E and N. It's true, I should have stuck to Bowring's E' and N' notation, since the formulas give distances from the central meridian and equator, rather than actual Easting and Northing.

 * "(i) Use lambda rather than omega to assist comparisons."

 * No big objection to that-- but I'm guessing there won't be many comparisons made.

 * "(j) High accuracy m is irrelevant when truncation errors are almost 1mm."

 * True enough. The point is Bowring's meridian distance formulas are simpler; the increased accuracy is no big deal.

 * "Bowring also references less accurate formulae for m."

 * Hm. You think he decided his 1983 formulas are wrong after all?

 * "(Moreover evaluation of m from an elliptic integral can be carried out to arbitrarily high accuracy)."

 * Feel free to supply the additional terms needed.

 * The elliptic integral can be computed by iteration using common transcendental functions. See AGM series in Abramowitz & Stegun or Bulirsch’s refinements for computers. Also, papers by Carlson (“Carlson symmetric form”) for highly general methods, both real and complex. Strebe (talk) 01:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

 * "(k) There is no such thing as a trillionth of a metre in SI units."

 * No one said there was. You think "a picometer" would be better? Why?

 * Because “trillion” means different things in American English and British English. Strebe (talk) 01:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

 * "(l) 'real coefficient of the imaginary part' is nonsense."

 * Yeah, "real coefficient of $$i$$" would be more correct.

 * It is simply “imaginary part”. Strebe (talk) 01:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

 * "(m) Finally. Has anyone ever used these formulae? I suspect not."

 * If you mean, Do they work?, the answer's yes. Their greater simplicity will be evident to anyone who programs the alternative sets of formulas; if millimeter accuracy isn't good enough for the user then he will have to look elsewhere, but most people will find no advantage to the traditional formulas. Tim Zukas (talk) 20:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

 * Other than that the traditional formulæ are well-tested, actually used in national and international systems, and computational results can be compared on large test sets. It is not good enough for the newcomer to be “not worse”. I agree Bowring’s formulation is easier on the eyes, for the most part. It’s just not an important advance, particularly for this era. Strebe (talk) 01:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggested revisions
I am presently rewriting the section on the ellipsoid version. Initially I thought that the Redfearn series provided the major implemention of TM (Transverse Mercator). I now realise that it is just as important to include the 'other' series developed by Kruger. It is much more accurate and moreover it is now in use by a number of national agencies (France, Finland, Sweden . .). Higher accuracy series have also been developed which may well be implemented by national agencies and commercial (oil) companies. These solutions are accurate to within a few nanometres within  4000km from the central meridian and will allow the use of very wide zones. In addition I feel it is important to include a discussion of the closed form (exact) TM projections. These have now been evaluated to horrendous accuracy and they provide an invaluable tool for the error analysis of the truncated series.

These considerations show that this article is getting too long and very maths heavy. The best solution seems to be to keep the discussion of the ellipsoidal series solutions as general as possible in this article and create three or four new pages with the details of the various series. (For the two Kruger variants, Lee-Thompson and Bowring -- and possibly others. Peter Mercator (talk) 22:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

 * Since no one has commented adversely on the above proposals I have removed much of the mathematical material to a new page for TM-Redfearn. I am working on two new pages, TM-flattening-series, TM-exact. I have also moved the Bowring material (and shall copy the Bowring discussion) to its own page without any further comments on its value.

 * My justifications are two-fold. Firstly, with the two new sections mentioned above, and new additions to the Redfearn material and possible further sections for other variants, the TM page will grow into a rather large and messy article. Secondly, my sympathy with the general reader prompts the construction of a less mathematical page here. From this article he can gain a general survey and then go to more "advanced" pages for technical details.

 * It is possible that the mathematics of the TM-sphere section should move. I favour keeping it because of the value of the figures to even non-mathematical readers. (eg the relation of the graticules and the introduction of convergence).

 * It would be good to have some feedback from other "watchers" on the actions I have taken (and possibly on the Bowring discussion). It would also be good to have some assistance with copy edits, link additions and checks of references etc. (on this page and the TM-Redfearn TM-Bowring pages.

 * Peter Mercator (talk) 22:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

 * I find the restructuring to be an improvement. For my own part, I prefer the exact formulation to appear in the main article on the transverse Mercator. It is not usual to separate the mathematical description of the topic from the topic. It is, after all, not so very long in this case. For the same reason I prefer keeping the spherical definition on the main page. I agree with the other rationales stated. Thanks for all the effort. Strebe (talk) 21:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Ellipsoid formulas: imagine you're the reader
Let's say we have come to this article looking for formulas to convert between lat-lon and transverse mercator. We know lat-lon is plotted on a spheroid, and we've learned the WGS84 defining parameters: equatorial radius 6378137 meters, reciprocal of the flattening 298.257223563 (hereinafter referred to as $$r$$). Getting started with the article we find

 * In addition to the parameters $$a$$ and $$e$$ the series employ:

\begin{align} b&=a(1-e^2)^{1/2},\qquad\qquad n=\frac{a-b}{a+b}. \end{align} $$

Looking thru the rest of the formulas we see we're going to need $$e^2$$ and $$n$$... but the author figures we shouldn't need to be told that $$e^2$$ equals $$(2r - 1)/r^2$$, so we have to go someplace else to learn that $$e^2$$ is 0.00669437999012 for the WGS84. Okay, now we need to calculate $$b$$; the author figures we shouldn't need to be told that $$b$$ equals $$(r - 1)/r$$ times $$a$$, so we plug $$e^2$$ into the formula he has given us and find that $$b$$ is 6356752.31425 meters, allowing us to find that

 * $$n \quad = \quad \frac {6378137 - 6356752.31425}{6378137 + 6356752.31425}$$

Think we might be a bit piqued when we someday learn that $$n$$ is just $$1/(2r - 1)$$?

Peter Mercator says the use of $$r$$ is superfluous-- and it's true, it's only useful if you're aiming to give the reader the info he needs as simply and directly as possible. Tim Zukas (talk) 19:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Transverse Mercator projection. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120211075826/http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/gps/information/coordinatesystemsinfo/guidecontents/ to http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/gps/information/coordinatesystemsinfo/guidecontents
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140328062812/http://psgsv2.gsi.go.jp/koukyou/jyunsoku/pdf/H25_junsoku_furoku6.pdf to http://psgsv2.gsi.go.jp/koukyou/jyunsoku/pdf/H25_junsoku_furoku6.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.mercator99.webspace.virginmedia.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Transverse Mercator projection


text:
Alexander Key

Alexander Hill Key (September 21, 1904 – July 25, 1979) was an American science fiction writer who primarily wrote children's literature.

Early life
Alexander Key was born in 1904 in LaPlatte, Maryland to Alexander Hill and Charlotte (Ryder) Key. The family soon moved to Florida, where he spent the next 6 years of his life. His father owned a sawmill and cotton gin, both of which were burned by night riders shortly before his father's death when Key was about six. Between the time of his father's death and his mother's death in an accident when he was 15, Key attended at least 14 different schools, including a military school in Georgia.

After his mother's death, Key was raised by various relatives for the rest of his childhood.

At 18, Key enrolled in the School of the Art Institute in Chicago, Illinois, which he attended between 1921 and 1923.

Literary work
His novel Escape to Witch Mountain was made into a popular live-action film by Disney in 1975, 1995, and again in 2009. The sequel was made into another film in 1978. His novel The Incredible Tide became an anime series called Future Boy Conan in 1978.

He is known for his portrayals of alien but human-looking people who have tremendously strong psychic/psionic abilities, a close communion with nature, and who can telepathically speak with animals. In his nonfiction book The Strange White Doves, he professed his belief that animals are conscious, thinking, feeling, perceiving, independent, and self-aware intelligent beings, and that they have subtle ways of communicating, perhaps via empathy or telepathy. The protagonists of Key's books are often ostracized, feared, or persecuted because of their astonishing abilities or extraterrestrial origins, and Key uses this as a clear metaphor for racism and other prejudice.

In several of his novels (most notably The Case of the Vanishing Boy), Key portrays some sort of communal withdrawal from society by a group of like-minded individuals. Key sometimes depicted government-sponsored social services for children as inefficient or even counterproductive in its efforts: in The Forgotten Door, social services is presented as a clearly undesirable alternative for the protagonist Little Jon, and, in Escape to Witch Mountain, Tony and Tia actively flee the system. In both cases, however, it is for a very logical reason: the characters are "not from around here". All they want to do is go home and, happily, a few of us locals have the decency to help them do so (Key's The Forgotten Door predates E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial by over 10 years).

The plot of Key's The Magic Meadow is even more poignant for any reader who has ever been bedridden in a hospital. Its ending in particular is phenomenally optimistic. That was another Alexander Key theme: that good and decent people deserve to escape to a place worthy of them.

As illustrator

 * In the Light of Myth: Selections from the World's Myths, compiled and interpreted by Rannie B. Baker (1925)
 * Real Legends of New England, G. Waldo Browne (1930)
 * The Book of Dragons, selected and edited by O. Muiriel Fuller (1931)
 * Suwannee River: Strange Green Land, Cecile Hulse Matschat (1938)

As writer

 * The Red Eagle: A Tale for Young Aviators (1930)
 * Liberty or Death (1936)
 * With Daniel Boone on the Caroliny Trail (1941)
 * The Wrath and the Wind (1949)
 * Island Light (1950)
 * Sprockets: A Little Robot (1963)
 * Rivets and Sprockets (1964)
 * The Forgotten Door (1965)
 * Bolts: a Robot Dog (1966)
 * Mystery of the Sassafras Chair (1968)
 * Escape to Witch Mountain (1968)
 * The Golden Enemy (1969)
 * The Incredible Tide (1970)
 * Flight to the Lonesome Place (1971)
 * The Strange White Doves (1972)
 * The Preposterous Adventures of Swimmer (1973)
 * The Magic Meadow (1975)
 * Jagger, the Dog from Elsewhere (1976)
 * The Sword of Aradel (1977)
 * Return from Witch Mountain (1978) – by Key based on the Disney motion picture; screenplay by Malcolm Marmorstein, based on characters created by Key
 * The Case of the Vanishing Boy (1979)

title: Alexander Key


text:
Edgeworth series

The Gram–Charlier A series (named in honor of Jørgen Pedersen Gram and Carl Charlier), and the Edgeworth series (named in honor of Francis Ysidro Edgeworth) are series that approximate a probability distribution in terms of its cumulants. The series are the same; but, the arrangement of terms (and thus the accuracy of truncating the series) differ. The key idea of these expansions is to write the characteristic function of the distribution whose probability density function $f$ is to be approximated in terms of the characteristic function of a distribution with known and suitable properties, and to recover $f$ through the inverse Fourier transform.

Gram–Charlier A series
We examine a continuous random variable. Let $$\hat{f}$$ be the characteristic function of its distribution whose density function is $f$, and $$\kappa_r$$ its cumulants. We expand in terms of a known distribution with probability density function $ψ$, characteristic function $$\hat{\psi}$$, and cumulants $$\gamma_r$$. The density $ψ$ is generally chosen to be that of the normal distribution, but other choices are possible as well. By the definition of the cumulants, we have (see Wallace, 1958)
 * $$\hat{f}(t)= \exp\left[\sum_{r=1}^\infty\kappa_r\frac{(it)^r}{r!}\right]$$ and
 * $$ \hat{\psi}(t)=\exp\left[\sum_{r=1}^\infty\gamma_r\frac{(it)^r}{r!}\right],$$

which gives the following formal identity:
 * $$\hat{f}(t)=\exp\left[\sum_{r=1}^\infty(\kappa_r-\gamma_r)\frac{(it)^r}{r!}\right]\hat{\psi}(t)\,.$$

By the properties of the Fourier transform, $$(it)^r \hat{\psi}(t)$$ is the Fourier transform of $$(-1)^r[D^r\psi](-x)$$, where $D$ is the differential operator with respect to $x$. Thus, after changing $$x$$ with $$-x$$ on both sides of the equation, we find for $f$ the formal expansion

 * $$f(x) = \exp\left[\sum_{r=1}^\infty(\kappa_r - \gamma_r)\frac{(-D)^r}{r!}\right]\psi(x)\,.$$

If $ψ$ is chosen as the normal density

 * $$\phi(x) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma}\exp\left[-\frac{(x-\mu)^2}{2\sigma^2}\right]$$

with mean and variance as given by $f$, that is, mean $$\mu = \kappa_1$$ and variance $$\sigma^2 = \kappa_2$$, then the expansion becomes

 * $$f(x) = \exp\left[\sum_{r=3}^\infty\kappa_r\frac{(-D)^r}{r!}\right] \phi(x),$$

since $$ \gamma_r=0$$ for all $r$ > 2, as higher cumulants of the normal distribution are 0. By expanding the exponential and collecting terms according to the order of the derivatives, we arrive at the Gram–Charlier A series. Such an expansion can be written compactly in terms of Bell polynomials as

 * $$\exp\left[\sum_{r=3}^\infty\kappa_r\frac{(-D)^r}{r!}\right] = \sum_{n=0}^\infty B_n(0,0,\kappa_3,\ldots,\kappa_n)\frac{(-D)^n}{n!}. $$

Since the n-th derivative of the Gaussian function $$\phi$$ is given in terms of Hermite polynomial as

 * $$\phi^{(n)}(x) = \frac{(-1)^n}{\sigma^n} He_n \left( \frac{x-\mu}{\sigma} \right) \phi(x),$$

this gives us the final expression of the Gram–Charlier A series as

 * $$ f(x) = \phi(x) \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{1}{n! \sigma^n} B_n(0,0,\kappa_3,\ldots,\kappa_n) He_n \left( \frac{x-\mu}{\sigma} \right).$$

Integrating the series gives us the cumulative distribution function

 * $$ F(x) = \int_{-\infty}^x f(u) du = \Phi(x) - \phi(x) \sum_{n=3}^\infty \frac{1}{n! \sigma^{n-1}} B_n(0,0,\kappa_3,\ldots,\kappa_n) He_{n-1} \left( \frac{x-\mu}{\sigma} \right), $$

where $$\Phi$$ is the CDF of the normal distribution.

If we include only the first two correction terms to the normal distribution, we obtain

 * $$ f(x) \approx \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma}\exp\left[-\frac{(x-\mu)^2}{2\sigma^2}\right]\left[1+\frac{\kappa_3}{3!\sigma^3}He_3\left(\frac{x-\mu}{\sigma}\right)+\frac{\kappa_4}{4!\sigma^4}He_4\left(\frac{x-\mu}{\sigma}\right)\right]\,,$$

with $$He_3(x)=x^3-3x$$ and $$He_4(x)=x^4 - 6x^2 + 3$$.

Note that this expression is not guaranteed to be positive, and is therefore not a valid probability distribution. The Gram–Charlier A series diverges in many cases of interest—it converges only if $$f(x)$$ falls off faster than $$\exp(-(x^2)/4)$$ at infinity (Cramér 1957). When it does not converge, the series is also not a true asymptotic expansion, because it is not possible to estimate the error of the expansion. For this reason, the Edgeworth series (see next section) is generally preferred over the Gram–Charlier A series.

The Edgeworth series
Edgeworth developed a similar expansion as an improvement to the central limit theorem. The advantage of the Edgeworth series is that the error is controlled, so that it is a true asymptotic expansion.

Let $$\{Z_i\}$$ be a sequence of independent and identically distributed random variables with finite mean $$\mu$$ and variance $$\sigma^2$$, and let $$X_n$$ be their standardized sums:

 * $$X_n = \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \sum_{i=1}^n \frac{Z_i - \mu}{\sigma}.$$

Let $$F_n$$ denote the cumulative distribution functions of the variables $$X_n$$. Then by the central limit theorem,

\lim_{n\to\infty} F_n(x) = \Phi(x) \equiv \int_{-\infty}^x \tfrac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}e^{-\frac{1}{2}q^2}dq $$

for every $$x$$, as long as the mean and variance are finite.

The standardization of $$\{Z_i\}$$ ensures that the first two cumulants of $$X_n$$ are $$\kappa_1^{F_n} = 0$$ and $$\kappa_2^{F_n} = 1.$$ Now assume that, in addition to having mean $$\mu$$ and variance $$\sigma^2$$, the i.i.d. random variables $$Z_i$$ have higher cumulants $$ \kappa_r$$. From the additivity and homogeneity properties of cumulants, the cumulants of $$X_n$$ in terms of the cumulants of $$Z_i$$ are for $$r \geq 2$$,

 * $$ \kappa_r^{F_n} = \frac{n \kappa_r}{\sigma^r n^{r/2}} = \frac{\lambda_r}{n^{r/2 - 1}} \quad \mathrm{where} \quad \lambda_r = \frac{\kappa_r}{\sigma^r}. $$

If we expand the formal expression of the characteristic function $$\hat{f}_n(t)$$ of $$F_n$$ in terms of the standard normal distribution, that is, if we set

 * $$\phi(x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\exp(-\tfrac{1}{2}x^2),$$

then the cumulant differences in the expansion are

 * $$ \kappa^{F_n}_1-\gamma_1 = 0,$$
 * $$ \kappa^{F_n}_2-\gamma_2 = 0,$$
 * $$ \kappa^{F_n}_r-\gamma_r = \frac{\lambda_r}{n^{r/2-1}}; \qquad r\geq 3.$$

The Gram–Charlier A series for the density function of $$X_n$$ is now

 * $$ f_n(x) = \phi(x) \sum_{r=0}^\infty \frac{1}{r!} B_r \left(0,0,\frac{\lambda_3}{n^{1/2}},\ldots,\frac{\lambda_r}{n^{r/2-1}}\right) He_r(x).$$

The Edgeworth series is developed similarly to the Gram–Charlier A series, only that now terms are collected according to powers of $$n$$. The coefficients of n−m/2 term can be obtained by collecting the monomials of the Bell polynomials corresponding to the integer partitions of m. Thus, we have the characteristic function as

 * $$ \hat{f}_n(t)=\left[1+\sum_{j=1}^\infty \frac{P_j(it)}{n^{j/2}}\right] \exp(-t^2/2)\,,$$

where $$P_j(x)$$ is a polynomial of degree $$3j$$. Again, after inverse Fourier transform, the density function $$f_n$$ follows as

 * $$ f_n(x) = \phi(x) + \sum_{j=1}^\infty \frac{P_j(-D)}{n^{j/2}} \phi(x)\,.$$

Likewise, integrating the series, we obtain the distribution function

 * $$ F_n(x) = \Phi(x) + \sum_{j=1}^\infty \frac{1}{n^{j/2}} \frac{P_j(-D)}{D} \phi(x)\,. $$

We can explicitly write the polynomial $$P_m(-D)$$ as

 * $$ P_m(-D) = \sum \prod_i \frac{1}{k_i!} \left(\frac{\lambda_{l_i}}{l_i!}\right)^{k_i} (-D)^s,$$

where the summation is over all the integer partitions of m such that $$\sum_i i k_i = m$$ and $$l_i = i+2$$ and $$s = \sum_i k_i l_i.$$

For example, if m = 3, then there are three ways to partition this number: 1 + 1 + 1 = 2 + 1 = 3. As such we need to examine three cases:

 * 1 + 1 + 1 = 1 · k1, so we have k1 = 3, l1 = 3, and s = 9.
 * 1 + 2 = 1 · k1 + 2 · k2, so we have k1 = 1, k2 = 1, l1 = 3, l2 = 4, and s = 7.
 * 3 = 3 · k3, so we have k3 = 1, l3 = 5, and s = 5.

Thus, the required polynomial is

\begin{align} P_3(-D) &= \frac{1}{3!} \left(\frac{\lambda_3}{3!}\right)^3 (-D)^9 + \frac{1}{1! 1!} \left(\frac{\lambda_3}{3!}\right) \left(\frac{\lambda_4}{4!}\right) (-D)^7 + \frac{1}{1!} \left(\frac{\lambda_5}{5!}\right) (-D)^5 \\ &= \frac{\lambda_3^3}{1296} (-D)^9 + \frac{\lambda_3 \lambda_4}{144} (-D)^7 + \frac{\lambda_5}{120} (-D)^5. \end{align} $$

The first five terms of the expansion are

 * $$\begin{align}

f_n(x) &= \phi(x) \\ &\quad -\frac{1}{n^{\frac{1}{2}}}\left(\tfrac{1}{6}\lambda_3\,\phi^{(3)}(x) \right) \\ &\quad +\frac{1}{n}\left(\tfrac{1}{24}\lambda_4\,\phi^{(4)}(x) + \tfrac{1}{72}\lambda_3^2\,\phi^{(6)}(x) \right) \\ &\quad -\frac{1}{n^{\frac{3}{2}}}\left(\tfrac{1}{120}\lambda_5\,\phi^{(5)}(x) + \tfrac{1}{144}\lambda_3\lambda_4\,\phi^{(7)}(x) + \tfrac{1}{1296}\lambda_3^3\,\phi^{(9)}(x)\right) \\ &\quad + \frac{1}{n^2}\left(\tfrac{1}{720}\lambda_6\,\phi^{(6)}(x) + \left(\tfrac{1}{1152}\lambda_4^2 + \tfrac{1}{720}\lambda_3\lambda_5\right)\phi^{(8)}(x) + \tfrac{1}{1728}\lambda_3^2\lambda_4\,\phi^{(10)}(x) + \tfrac{1}{31104}\lambda_3^4\,\phi^{(12)}(x) \right)\\ &\quad + O \left (n^{-\frac{5}{2}} \right ). \end{align}$$

Here, $φ^{(j)}(x)$ is the j-th derivative of $φ(·)$ at point x. Remembering that the derivatives of the density of the normal distribution are related to the normal density by $$\phi^{(n)}(x) = (-1)^n He_n(x)\phi(x)$$, (where $$He_n$$ is the Hermite polynomial of order n), this explains the alternative representations in terms of the density function. Blinnikov and Moessner (1998) have given a simple algorithm to calculate higher-order terms of the expansion.

Note that in case of a lattice distributions (which have discrete values), the Edgeworth expansion must be adjusted to account for the discontinuous jumps between lattice points.

Illustration: density of the sample mean of three χ² distributions

Take $$ X_i \sim \chi^2(k=2), \, i=1, 2, 3 \, (n=3)$$ and the sample mean $$ \bar X = \frac{1}{3} \sum_{i=1}^{3} X_i $$.

We can use several distributions for $$ \bar X $$:
 * The exact distribution, which follows a gamma distribution: $$ \bar X \sim \mathrm{Gamma}\left(\alpha=n\cdot k /2, \theta= 2/n \right)=\mathrm{Gamma}\left(\alpha=3, \theta= 2/3 \right)$$.
 * The asymptotic normal distribution: $$ \bar X \xrightarrow{n \to \infty} N(k, 2\cdot k /n ) = N(2, 4/3 )$$.
 * Two Edgeworth expansions, of degrees 2 and 3.

Discussion of results

 * For finite samples, an Edgeworth expansion is not guaranteed to be a proper probability distribution as the CDF values at some points may go beyond $$[0,1]$$.
 * They guarantee (asymptotically) absolute errors, but relative errors can be easily assessed by comparing the leading Edgeworth term in the remainder with the overall leading term.

title: Edgeworth series


text:
Carlton, Nottinghamshire

Carlton is a town in the Borough of Gedling, Nottinghamshire, England. It is to the east of Nottingham. The population at the 2011 Census was 6,881. It was an urban district until 1974, whose wards (Carlton Hill, Carlton, Cavendish, Colwick, Gedling, Netherfield, Phoenix and Porchester) had an estimated population of 48,416 in 2015. Owing to the growth of residential, commercial and industrial in the wider Gedling Borough, City of Nottingham, Borough of Broxtowe, Rushcliffe and Ashfield District, as well as the Amber Valley and Borough of Erewash in Derbyshire which have become quite urban around Nottingham, Carlton and Gedling, as well as Netherfield form a contiguous urban area.

History
In the Domesday Book of 1086, Carlton is referred to as Carentune.

Like other parts of Nottingham, Carlton grew up with the textile industry in the 19th century. It is now mostly residential.

Until 1950, Carlton was part of the Rushcliffe parliamentary constituency. It had its own eponymous constituency from 1950 until 1983, since when it has been in the Gedling constituency. In 1974, Carlton Urban District became part of the newly formed Borough of Gedling.

Geography
It is close to Bakersfield, Colwick, Gedling, Mapperley, Netherfield, Sneinton and St Ann's. It is near the River Trent and has an NG4 post code.

Community
The main shopping street is Carlton Hill, which has several shopping chains and smaller shops such as newsagents, chemists, and grocers. Carlton Square, the traditional centre of Carlton is today a shopping centre.

There are numerous areas of grass for children to play on, as the roads tend to be quite busy. The King George V Recreation Ground on Standhill Road is on the site of the former Standhill Brickworks, and includes a large playing field, a skatepark, and a children's playground. Carlton has two leisure centres: Richard Herrod Centre (an indoor bowling centre) on Foxhill Road and Carlton Forum (a swimming pool, gym and all-weather pitches) on Coningswath Road, off Cavendish Road.

Carlton Laundry on Primrose Street is a Grade II listed building by Watson Fothergill. It was built in 1899 as a laundry and dye works.

Rail
Carlton railway station is on the Nottingham to Lincoln Line.

Buses
Nottingham City Transport
 * 39: Nottingham, Thorneywood, Carlton Valley
 * 24: Nottingham, Carlton Road, Carlton Hill, Victoria Retail Park
 * 25: Nottingham, Carlton Hill, Westdale Lane, Mapperley, Arnold
 * 25B: Nottingham, Carlton Hill, Westdale Lane, Mapperley
 * 26: Nottingham, Carlton Hill, Gedling, Burton Joyce, Lowdham, Southwell
 * 27: Nottingham, Carlton Hill, Carlton

Nottingham Minibus & Coaches
 * 773: Victoria Retail Park, Netherfield, Carlton Square, Carlton Tesco, Bakersfield
 * 774: Victoria Retail Park, Netherfield, Cavendish Road, Gedling, Carlton Square, Netherfield, Victoria Retail Park.
 * N73: Mapperley, Westdale Lane, Carlton Valley, Netherfield, Victoria Retail Park.

Education
Local schools are Parkdale School, Carlton le Willows Academy, Sherwood Academy and The Carlton Academy.

Carlton Central Primary School was founded in the late 19th century but after a piece of masonry fell one night from the roof into the school assembly area in the 1960s, the school was demolished and the council house and the current Carlton Square were built in its place. A new school had been built on Foxhill Road/Carlton Hill and Carlton Central Primary School was relocated there. The new school had originally been intended to replace the deteriorating St. Paul's School on Carlton Hill. St Paul's was closed in 1983 after many years and attempts to find a new site and financing for a new building were unsuccessful. Carlton Central Primary School is not the only primary school in Carlton. Amongst others, Porchester Junior School (which has recently been extended) is situated at the top of Standhill Road, while Carlton Standhill Infants School is at the opposite end of Standhill Road.

Carlton has a number of pre schools & nurseries including Foxy Creeks Pre School (based in the Richard Herrod Centre, Foxhill Road), Good Foundations Day Nursery on Station Road and Little Owls Day Nursery on First Avenue.

Carlton is home to the Midlands Academy of Dance and Drama (also known as MADD). It is one of the UK's top musical theatre colleges.

Religion
St. Paul's Church, Carlton-in-the-Willows was built by Henry Herbert, 4th Earl of Carnarvon and consecrated in 1885. Located at the bottom of Carlton Hill, off Church Street, it is built in the style of a Roman Basilica and resides in the diocese of Southwell and Nottingham. Carlton Pentecostal Church is located opposite the fire station on Station Road.

Sport
Carlton Town Football Club were champions of Northern Counties East Football League Division One in the 2005–2006 season. Carlton Forum is a large leisure centre on Coningswath Road.

Notable people

 * Richard Beckinsale, actor and father of actresses Samantha Beckinsale and Kate Beckinsale, was born in Carlton in 1947.
 * Sam Beeton, chart topping singer/songwriter was born in Carlton in 1988.

title: Carlton, Nottinghamshire


text:
Coser

Coser is a surname. Notable people with the surname include:

 * Achille Coser (born 1982), Italian footballer
 * George Lucas Coser (born 1984), Brazilian footballer
 * Lewis A. Coser (1913–2003), American sociologist
 * Rose Laub Coser (1916–1994), German-American sociologist, educator, and social justice activist

title: Coser