Expand Messages
• Andrew - It depends on one s interpretation of self-similar. Imagine a sea of 1,000 foot prominence peaks in a square region. Imagine the same region is
Message 1 of 11 , May 2 11:13 AM
• 0 Attachment
Andrew -

It depends on one's interpretation of self-similar.
Imagine a sea of 1,000 foot prominence peaks in a square region.
Imagine the same region is overlayed with a set of 2000 foot prominence
peaks.

Given identical slopes, there is enough "room" for only 1/4 as many
of the 2,000 foot prominences are there are for the 1,000 foot prominences -
implying an inverse square relationship - and this is the "2.00" that I
have
been referring to.

It is only when you assign prominence bins to these peaks that
the question arises of how the DENSITY scales.

When the bin widths scale as the peak size then the number of peaks
per bin still scales as the inverse square of the prominence.
Bin widths linear in their contained prominences is wholly appropriate
as they too then "scale" with the objects under consideration.

For example, for self-similarity the number of peaks from
995 to 1005 feet is four times as many as the number of peaks from
1990 to 2010 feet. Note here how the bin width enlarges, appropriately
I feel, with the prominence.

When the bin widths are fixed (so corresponding to the formula
for rho (p)), then the numbers of peas per bin scales as the inverse cube
as you indicate.

I vastly prefer to report the numbers of prominences in groups ("bins")
of ever-increasing width as the prominence rises.

Ideally the bin width should be a constant fraction of the
prominence value.
When this is done, the number of peaks per bin scales as the inverse
square of the prominence for a self-similar landscape.

******************************************

So, in review, although sensu stricto rho (p) = p**-3 yields
a self-similar terrain, I prefer for practical (reporting) purposes to
think of this
relationship as f p * rho(p) = p**-2 where f is the fraction of p
corresponding to the bin width AT prominence p.

k_over_hbarc wrote:

> --- In prominence@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:prominence%40yahoogroups.com>, Adam Helman <helman@...> wrote:
>
> OK, we agree on the derivative.
>
> > Edward Earl can provide a nice proof of why
> > the choice a = 2.00 in a simple power-law model,
> >
> > rho (p) = p ** -a
> >
> > yields a mountain "range" that is self-similar
> > on all length (i.e. prominence) scales - and it is
> > well to see that 2.00 is indeed a typical "alpha equivalent"
> > (which is what I term the sum a0 + 2 a1 log p)
> > for mid-range prominences such as 500-1000 feet
> > (150 - 300 meters).
>
> No, I'm quite sure it's a = 3 in your equation that gives self-similarity.
>
> Look, the number of prominencess >= p in an x*x area should equal the
> number of prominences >= kp in a kx*kx area. That is, R should drop as
> the inverse square. Since r (= rho(p)) is the derivative of that, it
> must go as the inverse cube.
>
> Andrew Usher
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
• Getting close to finishing up Montana to P300. Noticed this one not listed anywhere as a 2K. Goat Mountain (8,191):
Message 2 of 11 , May 2 3:07 PM
• 0 Attachment
Getting close to finishing up Montana to P300. Noticed this one not listed
anywhere as a 2K.
Goat Mountain (8,191):

Line Parent is Pondera HP.

Lots of corrections to MT eastern County Prom Points and another error range
2k:
Mount Gould 9553' saddle@ 7560 (+/- 40).

_________________________________________________________________
http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=TAGHM_APR07
• ... fraction of p ... So we agree here too. I like to think of it primariliy in terms of R (the density of prominence = p), because we normally talk in terms
Message 3 of 11 , May 2 5:34 PM
• 0 Attachment
--- In prominence@yahoogroups.com, Adam Helman <helman@...> wrote:

> So, in review, although sensu stricto rho (p) = p**-3 yields
> a self-similar terrain, I prefer for practical (reporting) purposes to
> think of this relationship as f p * rho(p) = p**-2 where f is the
fraction of p
> corresponding to the bin width AT prominence p.

So we agree here too. I like to think of it primariliy in terms of R
(the density of prominence >= p), because we normally talk in terms of
prominence thresholds. For example, we can say that self-similar
terrain has exactly 4x as many P1Ks as P2Ks.

(Why do you put double spaces everywhere? I fix them in quoting you.)

Andrew Usher
• ... You refer to a cumulative prominence distribution function; as the definite integral from the lower threshold to infinity for rho(p). ... Integration of
Message 4 of 11 , May 2 5:51 PM
• 0 Attachment
Andrew wrote:
>because we normally talk in terms of
>prominence thresholds. For example, we can say that self-similar
>terrain has exactly 4x as many P1Ks as P2Ks.

You refer to a cumulative prominence distribution function;
as the definite integral from the lower threshold to infinity for rho(p).

>terrain has exactly 4x as many P1Ks as P2Ks.
Integration of p**-3 indeed yields p**-2 apart from a constant of
integration.

FYI, the definite integral of p**-(a0 + a1 ln p) is also analytically
evaluatable.
However it involves the error function of the prominence threshold -
which can then be numerically approximated.
Derivation of this integral is a real mess, and, of course, blows-up for
a1 < 0.

Perhaps Maple could generate an integral easier than what I've
found by hand??

In practice one sets an upper limit as well since real mountains
don't extend to infinity.

PS Never mind double spaces: all of my recent messages
have taken a seriously long FOUR HOURS to get posted.

There's may e a "disconnect" between my service provider
and Yahoo!! that precludes more timely messaging.

k_over_hbarc wrote:

> --- In prominence@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:prominence%40yahoogroups.com>, Adam Helman <helman@...> wrote:
>
> > So, in review, although sensu stricto rho (p) = p**-3 yields
> > a self-similar terrain, I prefer for practical (reporting) purposes to
> > think of this relationship as f p * rho(p) = p**-2 where f is the
> fraction of p
> > corresponding to the bin width AT prominence p.
>
> So we agree here too. I like to think of it primariliy in terms of R
> (the density of prominence >= p), because we normally talk in terms of
> prominence thresholds. For example, we can say that self-similar
> terrain has exactly 4x as many P1Ks as P2Ks.
>
> (Why do you put double spaces everywhere? I fix them in quoting you.)
>
> Andrew Usher
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.