Interval estimate — where it appears
Named by 4 essays across 2 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
Recovering the angle from the counts
Build a head at a stated divergence angle, forget the angle, and get it back from the spiral counts alone. Four angles, worst error twelve thousandths of a degree — and the only thing that crossed between the two halves was a list of coordinates.
The fragile junctions are the informative ones
That is the obvious worry once the radii are uncertain, and it is false. Across the whole range of asymmetry a junction's contribution to the bias moves by a factor of 1.36 while its leverage moves by a factor of 308,352, so the junction that says nothing damages the answer as badly as the one that says everything — and a sample is spoiled by counting rather than by weight.
The window that closes
The spread of a fitted branching exponent falls as the reciprocal root of the sample and its displacement does not fall at all, so there is a count past which every further junction buys confidence and no accuracy. Between three and five per cent of radius error the count arrives before the answer does, and no sample size both states a claim and contains the truth.
Where three and two become one
Two trees, one built to obey Murray's law and one to obey Da Vinci's, are measured through the same fifty junctions with the same instrument. At twelve per cent of error on each radius the two answers overlap, and above twenty and a half the tree built at three measures lower than the tree built at two.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
BiasBranching exponentDa Vinci's ruleHonest limitsMeasurement errorMurray's lawDiscriminationFittingLeverageNoiseSample sizeSampling