| ▲ | walrus01 4 hours ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Right, it was really more as a test of how much was contained in the training data set. For my purposes Vincenty is quite accurate enough. This isn't for millimeter level precision land surveying or measurements, but for distance in meters between microwave or millimeter wave band radio sites, point to point links. Even a distance difference of 4 meters plus or minus on a 12 km, 11 GHz band link is going to have no appreciable difference on link budget/reliability calculations, it can be that crude. But not so crude that I just want to throw Haversine at it when Vincenty exists and is not computationally expensive. As this was for a test of "what happens if..." I also watched to see if it did any web searches or external data retrieval to build the test script, and it didn't. I intentionally didn't give the LLM a direct copy of the software or a link to it, to see what it would do. In my case it was a randomly chosen example I could come up with in 10 seconds of imagination to see "hey what if I ask it to do this...". It also implemented a perfectly usable parabolic millimeter wave antenna gain efficiency calculator based on variable surface smoothness parameters, which is a lot more basic math. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | jacobolus 3 hours ago | parent [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
As an aside: I'm quite convinced that an extremely precise version can be implemented that is significantly faster than Karney's, roughly comparable in speed to simpler naïve approximations. But for most purposes where the precision matters Karney's implementation is not any kind of bottleneck, so it's not clear it's worth spending significant effort on trying to do better. Maybe that's something one of the big LLM companies might want to throw their machines at optimizing if they need to do a lot of geographical calculations. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||