3 ms·
Please read the sources I cited. You are arguing about epicycles based on a fictional story you heard about them.
by jjk166 1y ago
Please read the sources I cited. You are arguing about epicycles based on a fictional story you heard about them.
- Retric 1y agoI did read them. The first is overlooking the issue of overfitting using hand calculation and imperfect observations. The calculated “best fit” for the data available did involved adding a bunch of epicycles and there was no theoretical reason to avoid doing so. The second is playing fast and loose with a fat line drawn over a squiggly line based on a better model. It’s being mathematically rigorous but intentionally deceptive. You can fairly trivially construct a set of epicycles to fit some desired shape, but working backwards from observation there’s nothing guiding you to the most elegant possible solution for a given situation.