From: tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com   
      
   "Dmitry A. Kazakov"  writes:   
      
   > On 2023-01-08 16:45, Tim Rentsch wrote:   
   >   
   >> "Dmitry A. Kazakov"  writes:   
   >>   
   >>> Averaging arcs is equivalent to averaging angles.   
   >>   
   >> Angles are a one-dimensional measure.   
   >   
   > Averaging arcs is still equivalent to averaging angles, which is   
   > trivial result of elementary trigonometry.   
   >   
   >> Finding an arc length   
   >> "average" of points on a sphere needs a two-dimensional result.   
   >   
   > Points do not have arcs.   
   >   
   >>>> Now that I think about it, finding the point that minimizes the   
   >>>> great circle distances squared would be at least computationally   
   >>>> unpleasant.   
   >>>   
   >>> See above, it is just angles to average.   
   >>   
   >> Apparently you have not yet understood the problem.   
   >   
   > Again, averages of arcs and angles are equivalent up to a   
   > multiplier.   
   >   
   >> Why don't   
   >> you try writing a program that inputs a set of points normalized   
   >> to be on the unit sphere, and then calculates the arc length   
   >> average point (on the unit sphere) of those input points?   
   >   
   > Why don't you write a formula specifying your need?   
   >   
   > Programs are written according to the specifications.  Numeric   
   > programs require a properly stated problem, rather than a bunch   
   > of words arbitrarily thrown in a meaningless sentence as above.   
      
   After reading this response and also three other responses of   
   yours (to Ben Bacarisse) down stream, I can't help but think you   
   have little or no interest in understanding the problem, offering   
   any useful comments about it, or trying to write a program to   
   solve the problem.  Apparently the only interest you do have is   
   making captious remarks.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)