vorgelegt von
M.Sc. Joseph L. Awange
aus GemKathomo, Siaya / Kenya
Examiner  Hauptberichter:
Coexaminers  Mitberichter:
Tag der mndlichen Prfung:
Prof. Dr.Ing. habil. Dr. tech. h.c. mult., Dr.Ing. E.h. E. W. Grafarend
Prof. Dr.Ing. habil. D. Lelgemann, Berlin
Prof. Dr. rer. nat. W. Freeden, Kaiserslautern
26112001
Dissertation (D93)
Geodtisches Institut der Universitt Stuttgart
2002
An online colourfull version of this dissertation is availlable at homepages of the University Library and Department
of Geodesy and geoInformatics of the University of Stuttgart under the following addresses:
http://elib.unistuttgart.de/opus/
http://www.unistuttgart.de/gi/research
iii
Abstract
The algebraic techniques of Grbner bases and Multipolynomial resultants are presented as efficient algebraic tools
for solving explicitly the nonlinear geodetic problems. In particular, these algebraic tools are used to provide symbolic
solutions to the problems of GPS pseudoranging fourpoint P4P, Minimum Distance Mapping and the threedimensional resection. The various forward and backward substitution steps inherent in the classical closed form solutions
for these selected geodetic problems are avoided. Similar to the Gauss elimination technique in linear systems of
equations, the Grbner bases and Multipolynomial resultants eliminate several variables in a multivariate system of
nonlinear equations in such a manner that the end product normally consists of univariate polynomial equations whose
roots can be determined by existing programs such as the roots command in MATLAB.
The capability of Grbner bases and Multipolynomial resultants to solve explicitly nonlinear geodetic problems enables us to use them as the computational engine in the GaussJacobi combinatorial algorithm proposed by C. F.
Gauss (published posthumously e.g Appendix A.4) and C. G. I. Jacobi (1841) to solve the nonlinear GaussMarkov
model. With the nonlinear geodetic observation equations converted into algebraic (polynomial) form, the GaussJacobi combinatorial algorithm is carried out in two steps.
In the first step all combinations of minimal subsets of the observation equations are formed, and the unknowns of
each subset are rigorously solved by means of the Grbner bases and the Multipolynomial resultants. The solution
. In a second step the solution of the overdetermined
sets can be represented as points in an dimensional space
GauMarkovmodel is constructed as weighted arithmetic mean of those solution points. Hereby the weights are
obtained from the Error propagation law/variancecovariance propagation. Using the developed GaussJacobi combinatorial algorithm, the overdetermined threedimensional resection problem based on the test network Stuttgart
Central is solved.
The algorithms are finally applied successfully to two case studies; transforming in a closed form geocentric coordinates to Gauss ellipsoidal coordinates (geodetic) and to obtain the seven datum transformation parameters from two
sets of coordinates. By means of Grbner basis, the scale parameter (in the seven datum transformation parameters
problem) is shown to fulfill be a univariate algebraic equation of fourth order (quartic polynomial) while the rotation
parameters are functions in scale and the coordinates differences.
Zusammenfassung
Die Methode der GrbnerBasen (GB) und der Multipolynomialen Resultante (MR) wird als wirksames algebraisches
Hilfsmittel zur expliziten Lsung nichtlinearer geodtischer Probleme vorgestellt. Insbesondere wird diese Methode dazu benutzt, um das VierpunktpseudorangingProblem beim GPS, das Problem des minimalen Abstands eines
vorgegebenen Punktes zu einer gekrmmten Flche sowie das Problem des dreidimensionalen Rckwrtsschnittes
analytisch zu lsen. Die verschiedenen Schritte der Vorwrts und RckwrtsEinsetzung, die bei den klassischen
geschlossenen Lsungen dieser ausgewhlten Probleme unumgnglich sind, werden dabei vermieden. In hnlicher
Weise wie bei der Gauschen Elimination bei linearen Gleichungssystemen werden durch die Methode der GB
und der MR die Variablen eines multivariaten nichtlinearen Gleichungssystems so eliminiert, dass eine univariate
Gleichung hherer Ordnung entsteht, deren Lsungsmenge mit existierenden Formelmanipulationsprogrammen wie
MATLAB bestimmt werden kann.
Wir nutzen die GB und MR als Rechenhilfsmittel bei der Lsung des nichtlinearen GauMarkovModells mit Hilfe
des kombinatorischen GauJacobiAlgorithmus, der von C.F. Gau (posthum verffentlicht, Anhang A.4) und von
C.G.I. Jacobi (1841) vorgeschlagen wurde. Sind die nichtlinearen geodtischen Beobachtungsgleichungen in algebraische (polynomiale) Form gebracht, wird der GauJacobiAlgorithmus in zwei Schritten durchgefhrt. Im ersten
Schritt werden alle
Kombinationen von minimalen Untermengen der Beobachtungsgleichungen gebildet, daraus
werden mit Hilfe von GB und MRAlgorithmen jeweils streng die Unbekannten des Problems bestimmt. Die
Lsungsmengen knnen als Punkte in einem dimensionalen Raum
dargestellt werden. Im zweiten Schritt wird
die Lsung des berbestimmten GauMarkovModells als gewichtetes arithmetisches Mittel dieser Lsungspunkte
konstruiert. Dabei ergeben sich die Gewichte aus dem Fortpflanzungsgesetz der Varianzen/Kovarianzen. Mit Hilfe
des so erweiterten kombinatorischen GauJacobiAlgorithmus wird das Testnetz Stuttgart Stadtmitte als berbestimmter Rckwrtsschnitt ausgeglichen.
Die Algorithmen werden schlielich auf zwei Fallstudien erfolgreich angewandt: es werden zum einen geozentrische
Koordinaten in geschlossener Form in Gausche ellipsoidische (geodtische) Koordinaten transformiert, zum anderen
werden aus zwei entsprechenden KoordinatenDatenstzen, die sich auf Systeme unterschiedlicher Datumsfestlegung
iv
beziehen, die sieben Transformationsparameter bestimmt. Mit Hilfe der GB wird gezeigt, dass bei dem letztgenannten Problem der Mastabsfaktor als eine univariates algebraische Gleichung vierter Ordnung erfllt, whrend die
Rotationsparameter Funktionen des Mastabsfaktors und der Koordinatendifferenzen sind.
Acknowledgments
First and foremost, let me begin by quoting from the book of Psalms 121:12 (NIV) I lift up my eyes to the hills,
where does my help come from? My help comes from the Lord, the Maker of heaven and earth. To you my God shall
I offer my praise, for it was your hand that led me through. The precious gift of life that you have granted unto us
manifests your true love, grace and mercy. We are truly a living proof of you grace and mercy. May your name be
lifted high both in heaven and on earth. Glory and honour be to you, my most holy God, for through Jesus Christ, we
have been made sons and part takers of the kingdom.
I wish to acknowledge gratefully the financial support from the Deutsche Akademische Austauschdienst DAAD which
enabled me to undertake my Ph. D. studies at the Department of Geodesy and Geoinformation, University of Stuttgart,
Germany. Your financial support was like fresh cool water for a thirsty fellow in the desert.
My special gratitude to the staff of the Department of Geography and Earth Sciences, Moi University Kenya, as well
as the administration of Moi University for approving my study leave to study in Germany. The support you gave to
my family during my absence is highly appreciated.
I wish to express my sincere gratitude to Prof. Dr.Ing. habil. Erik W. Grafarend whose tireless efforts and patience
as my supervisor greatly contributed towards the completion and success of this study. The advice, suggestions,
discussions and encouragement he gave inspired me greatly. Of particular importance, he fitted me into his bed
of tight schedule, but unlike the bed of Procrustes (the Greek legend who fitted his visitors to their beds by either
stretching or cutting their legs, in which case they died), this particular bed provided vast knowledge. For that, I am
grateful.
I am indebted to Prof. B. Buchberger and Prof. D. A. Cox who readily discussed the topic of Grbner basis, Prof. B.
Sturmfels and Prof. D. Manocha for their discussions on the topic of Multipolynomial resultants, Prof. W. Keller who
was always willing to discuss the topic and Professors F. W. O. Aduol of Dept. of Surveying, University of Nairobi
and P. Omondi of Dept. Geography and Earth Sciences, Moi University for their encouragement: The suggestions you
gave, materials you sent and the encouragement from you are highly appreciated.
Special thanks to Dr.Ing. F. Krumm whose door was always opened for consultations, advice and discussions. I
recognize the friendship and sacrifice you made especially when things were tough. I salute Dr.Ing. J. Engels and
Dr.Ing. V. Schwarze for their contributions towards the success of the study. I would have wished to mention each
of the members of the Department of Geodesy and Geoinformation, University of Stuttgart by name, for each of them
contributed in one way or another towards the success of my research work: Your encouragement, tolerance and love
provided a conducive working environment. May the almighty God greatly reward each of you.
To my friends A. Kahi, J. B. K. Kiema, J. B. Miima, M. Ngigi, C. Gaya, J. Omollo, E. Mugoye, V. Mabu, N. M. Otiato,
and A. Osire, I want you to know that true friends are like rare jewels and I am grateful for your friendship.
Last, but not least, I wish to acknowledge the patience of my wife Naomi Awange and two daughters Mellissa Lucy
Awange and Ruth Mich Awange. Your cheerful faces and smiles brightened the entire study.
For those who contributed in one way or another and have not been named, you have not been forgotten. I salute you.
To you all, I thank you from the bottom of my heart. May the blessings of the almighty God be with you richly.
Contents
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
iii
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
iv
Introduction
Nonlinear Adjustment
12
231
13
232
13
2321
. . . . . . . . . . .
13
2322
19
23
26
27
27
233
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
311
GPS Positioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
27
312
LPS positioning
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
27
3121
27
3122
28
313
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
29
314
Observation Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
31
321
31
322
48
323
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
51
3231
51
3232
57
3233
59
3234
Outlier diagnosis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
60
CONTENTS
vi
4 Test network Stuttgart Central
63
41 Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
64
67
421
Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
67
70
431
Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
70
44 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
73
441
Distances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
73
442
Position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
73
5 Case studies
83
83
87
95
Appendices
97
Appendix A1:
Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendix A2:
Appendix A3:
Appendix A4:
References
97
113
List of Figures
2.1
Levelling Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10
3.1
31
3.2
58
3.3
59
3.4
Magnification of the scatter of 14 GaussJacobi combinatorial solutions ( ) around the adjusted value
( ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
59
3.5
62
4.1
63
4.2
Deviation of computed position of station K1 in Tables (4.18) and (4.20) from the real value in Table
(4.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
76
4.3
Scatter of combinatorial solutions for data sets 1 and 2 in Tables (4.3) and (4.4) . . . . . . . . . . . .
77
4.4
Scatter of combinatorial solutions for data sets 3 and 4 in Tables (4.5) and (4.6) . . . . . . . . . . . .
78
4.5
Scatter of combinatorial solutions for data sets 5 and 6 in Tables (4.7) and (4.8) . . . . . . . . . . . .
79
4.6
Scatter of combinatorial solutions for data sets 7 and 8 in Tables (4.9) and (4.10) . . . . . . . . . . . .
80
4.7
Scatter of combinatorial solutions for data sets 9 and 10 in Tables (4.11) and (4.12) . . . . . . . . . .
81
4.8
82
5.1
Minimum distance mapping of a point on the Earths topographic surface to a point on the International Reference Ellipsoid
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
83
5.2
Scatter of the computed 36 minimal combinatorial values of scale around the adjusted value . . . . .
93
5.3
Scatter of the 36 computed translations and rotations around the adjusted values . . . . . . . . . . . .
94
A1
Ring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
A2
Combinatorial simplexes for the for test network Stuttgart Central . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
A3
Combinatorial simplexes for the for test network Stuttgart Central . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
A4
Combinatorial simplexes for the for test network Stuttgart Central . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
A5
Combinatorial simplexes for the for test network Stuttgart Central . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
A6
Combinatorial simplexes for the for test network Stuttgart Central . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
vii
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
List of Tables
3.1
51
3.2
51
3.3
52
3.4
56
3.5
57
3.6
57
3.7
58
3.8
58
3.9
60
3.10 Computed rootmeansquare errors and the difference in solution between the two approaches . . . .
60
60
61
, "!#$%!&!'()+*,./1020303(4
4.1
. . . . .
64
4.2
Ideal spherical coordinates of the relative position vector in the Local Horizontal Reference Frame :
Spatial distances, horizontal directions, vertical directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
65
Randomly generated spherical coordinates of the relative position vector: horizontal directions and
vertical directions
rootmeansquare errors of individual observations, differences
with respect to
ideal data
of Table 4.2, first data set: set 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
65
4.4
65
4.5
65
4.6
65
4.7
66
4.8
66
4.9
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
66
66
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
67
67
67
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
74
74
74
4.3
7 ! #)*8,$.91030203:;4/
<=61!?>@*A61!CBD61!$FEG2H9G3IJLK$G2M9NO<P7 !?>@*Q7R!CBS7R!#EG2H9G3IJLK$G2M9
ix
5
6!
61!T7R!U
LIST OF TABLES
75
75
75
4.20 Deviation of K1 in Table (4.19) from the real value in Table (4.1)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
75
5.1
85
5.2
Polynomial coefficients
86
5.3
5.4
V(WXV2YLXV
ZVN[OZV(\ of the univariate polynomial of order four in ];\ . . . . . .
Computed Cartesian coordinates F]^Y_#] ]%[&*`]C#a^$bc and Lagrange multiplier ]%\ . . . . . . . . .
86
Geodetic Coordinates computed from ellipsoidal Cartesian coordinates in closed form (Baltic Sea
Level Project) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
87
5.5
91
5.6
91
5.7
91
5.8
Transformed Cartesian coordinates of System A (Table 5.5) into System B (Table 5.6) using the 7datum transformation parameters of Table (5.7) computed by Grbner basis . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
91
92
5.9
5.10 Transformed Cartesian coordinates of System A (Table 5.5) into System B (Table 5.6) using the 7datum transformation parameters of Table (5.9) computed by the GaussJacobi combinatorial algorithm 92
5.11 Transformed Cartesian coordinates of System A (Table 5.5) into System B (Table 5.6) using the 7datum transformation parameters computed by Least Squares Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
93
93
Chapter 1
Introduction
11
In Geodesy, Photogrammetry and Computer Vision, nonlinear equations are often encountered in several applications
as they often relate the observations (measurements) to the unknown parameters to be determined. In case the number
), the unknown parameters may be obtained by
of observations and the number of unknowns are equal (
solving explicitly or in a closed form the system of equations relating observations to the unknown parameters. For
example, D. Cox et al. (1998, pp.2832) has illustrated that for systems of equations with exact solution, the system
become vulnerable to small errors introduced during root findings and in case of extending the partial solution to the
complete solution of the system, the errors may accumulate and thus become so large. If the partial solution was
derived by iterative procedures, then the errors incurred during the rootfinding may blow up during the extension of
the partial solution to the complete solution (back substitution).
d*
In some applications, symbolic rather than numerical solution are desired. In such cases, explicit procedures are
usually employed. The resulting symbolic expressions often consists of univariate polynomials relating the unknown
parameters (unknown variables) to the known variables (observations). By inserting known values into these univariate
polynomials, numerical solutions are readily computed for the unknown variables. Advantages of explicit solutions
have been listed by E. L. Merritt (1949) as; provision of satisfaction to the users (Photogrammetrist and Mathematicians) of the methods, provision of data tools for checking the iterative methods, desired by Geodesist whose task of
control densification does not favor iterative procedures, provision of solace and the requirement of explicit solutions
rather than iterative by some applications. In Geodesy for example, the Minimum Distance Mapping problem considered by E. Grafarend and P. Lohse (1991) relates a point on the Earths topographical surface uniquely (onetoone)
to a point on the International Reference Ellipsoid. The solution of such an optimization problem requires that the
equations be solved explicitly.
The draw back that was experienced with explicit solutions was that they were like rare jewel. The reason for this
was partly because the methods required extensive computations for the results to be obtained and partly because the
resulting symbolic expressions were too large and required computers with large storage capacity. Until recently, the
computers that were available could hardly handle large computations due to lack of faster Central Processing Unit
(CPU), shortage of Random Access Memory (RAM) and limited hard disk space for storage. The other set back
experienced by the explicit procedures was that some of the methods, especially those from algebraic fields, were
formulated based on theoretical concepts that were hard to realize or comprehend without the help of computers. For a
long time, these setbacks hampered progress of the explicit procedures. The advances made in computer technology in
recent years however has changed the tides and led to improvements in explicit computational procedures which hitherto were difficult to achieve. Apart from the improvements in existing computational procedures, new computational
techniques are continously being added to the increasing list of computational methods with an aim of optimizing
computational speed and efficiency. In this category are the algebraic methods of Grbner bases and Multipolynomial
resultants.
The present study examines the suitability of algebraic computational techniques of Grbner bases and Multipolynomial resultants in solving explicitly nonlinear systems of observation equations that have been converted into algebraic
(polynomial) form in Geodesy. The algebraic techniques of Grbner bases and Sylvester resultant (resultant of two
polynomials) for solving polynomial equations in Geodesy have been mentioned and examples of their applications
to the twodimensional case given in the work of P. Lohse (1994, pp.3639, 7176). The present study considers
1
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
the Grbner bases and Multipolynomial resultants (resultant of more than two polynomials) in the solution of threedimensional problems. E. Grafarend (1989) has already suggested the use of Grbner bases approach in solving the
perspective center problem in photogrammetry.
Other than revolutionizing computation procedures, the advances made in computer technology have also led to improvement in instrumentation for data acquisition as exemplified in the case of GPS positioning satellites. Since its
inception as a positioning tool, the Global Positioning System (GPS) referred to by E. Grafarend and J. Shan (1996)
as the Global Problem Solver has revolutionized geodetic positioning techniques and maintained its supremacy as a
positioning tool. These improvements on instrumentation for data acquisition have led to improved data collection
procedures and increase in accuracy. Lengthy geodetic procedures such as triangulation that required a lot of time,
intervisibility between stations and a large manpower are rapidly being replaced by satellite positioning techniques
which require shorter observation periods, no intervisibility requirement, weather independent and less manpower
leading to optimization of time and money. Whereas improved instrumentation is applauded, it comes a long with its
own difficulties. One of the difficulties is that a lot of data is collected than required to determine unknown parameters
leading to redundancies. In positioning with GPS for example, due to its constellation that offer a wider coverage,
more than four satellites can be observed at any point of the earth. In the minimal case, only four satellites are required
to fix the receiver position and the receiver clock bias assuming that the transmitter clock bias and the transmitterreceiver bias have been neglected for the pseudorange type of observations. More than four satellites therefore lead
, the explicit solutions give way to optimization procedures
to superfluous observations. In such cases, where
such as least squares solution which work very well for linear models under specified conditions.
de
In Geodesy however, the observation equations are normally nonlinear thus requiring the use of nonlinear GaussMarkov model which is normally solved either by first linearizing the observation equations using Taylor series expansion to the second order terms about approximate values of the unknowns then applying linear models estimation
procedures or by using iterative procedures such as the GaussNewton approach. The linearization approach has the
disadvantage that the linearized approximation of the nonlinear models may still suffer from nonlinearity and thus
resulting in the estimates of such models being far from the real estimates of the nonlinear models. This can easily be
checked by resubstituting the estimates from the linearized model into the original nonlinear model.
For the iterative procedures, the greatest undoing may be the requirement of the initial approximate values to start off
the iterations which may not be available for some applications. For simper models, the approximate initial values may
be computed, for others however, the approximate values may be impossible to compute. Apart from the problem of
getting the initial approximate values, there also exists the problem that poor choice of approximate values may lead to
lack of convergence or if the approximate value be far from the real solution, then a large number of iterations may be
required to get close to the real solution thus rendering the whole procedure to be quite slow, especially where multiple
roots are available. For other procedures such as the 7parameter datum transformation that requires linearization and
iterative methods, it is not feasible to take into account the stochasticity of both systems involved. Clearly, a procedure
for solving nonlinear GaussMarkov model that can avoid the requirement of initial approximate starting values for
iteration and linearization approaches and also take into consideration the stochasticity of the systems involved is the
desire of modern day Geodesist and Photogrammetrist.
With this background, the present study aims at answering the following questions:
For geodetic problems requiring explicit solutions, can the algebraic tools of Grbner bases and Multipolynomial resultants that have found applications in other fields such as Robotics (for kinematic modelling of robots),
Visions, Computer Aided Design (CAD), Engineering (offset surface construction in solid modelling), Computer Science (automated theorem proving) e.t.c. be used to solve systems of nonlinear observation equations
of algebraic (polynomial) type?
Is there any alternative for solving the nonlinear GaussMarkov model without resorting to linearization or
iterative procedures that require approximate starting values?
To answer the first question, the present study uses the Grbner bases and Multipolynomial resultants to solve explicitly the problems of GPS fourpoint pseudoranging, Minimum Distance Mapping and the threedimensional resection.
The answer to the second problem becomes clear once the first question has been answered. Should the algebraic
techniques of Grbner bases and Multipolynomial resultants be successful in solving explicitly the selected geodetic
problems, then they are used as the computational engine of the combinatorial algorithm that was first suggested by
C. F. Gauss (Published posthumously e.g. in Appendix A.4) and later on by C. G. I. Jacobi (1841) and extended by P.
Werkmeister (1920). We refer to this algorithm as the GaussJacobi combinatorial algorithm. In attempting to answer
the questions above, the objectives of the present study are formulate as:
(1)
Analyze the algebraic computational procedures of type Grbner bases and Multipolynomial resultants
with the aim of establishing their suitability in solving explicitly (in closed form) geodetic nonlinear
problems. In this respect, the Grbner bases and Multipolynomial resultants techniques are used to solve
explicitly (symbolically) geodetic problems of GPS pseudoranging fourpoint P4P, Minimum Distance
Mapping and the threedimensional resection. By converting the nonlinear observation equations of these
selected geodetic problems into algebraic (polynomial), the study aims at using the Grbner bases and
Multipolynomial resultants techniques to eliminate several variables in a multivariate system of nonlinear
polynomial equations in such a manner that the end product from the initial system of nonlinear observation equations normally consist of a univariate polynomial. The elimination procedure is similar to the
Gauss elimination approach in linear systems.
(2)
From the principle of weighted arithmetic mean and using the GaussJacobi combinatorial lemma (C.
G. I. Jacobi 1841), develop an adjustment procedure that neither linearizes the nonlinear observation
equations nor uses iterative procedures to solve the nonlinear GaussMarkov model. Linearization is
permitted only for nonlinear error propagation/variancecovariance propagation. Such procedure is to
use the univariate polynomial generated by the algebraic computational procedures of type Grbner bases
or Multipolynomial resultants as the computing engine for its minimal combinatorial set.
(3)
Test the procedures in solving real geodetic problems of determining the 7 transformation parameters and
transforming in a closed form the geocentric Cartesian coordinates to Gauss ellipsoidal coordinates
(geodetic).
12
The current known techniques for solving nonlinear polynomial equations can be classified into symbolic, numeric
and geometric methods (D. Manocha 1994c). Symbolic methods, which we consider in this study for solving closed
form geodetic problems, apply the Grbner bases and the Multipolynomial resultants techniques to eliminate several
variables in a multivariate system of equations in such a manner that the end product often consist of univariate
polynomials whose roots can be determined by existing programs such as the roots command in MATLAB. The
current available programs however are efficient only for sets of low degree polynomial systems consisting of upto
three to four polynomials due to the fact that computing the roots of the univariate polynomials can be ill conditioned
for polynomials of degree greater than 14 or 15 (D. Manocha 1994c).
Elaborate literature on Grbner bases can be found in the works of B. Buchberger (1965, 1970), J. H. Davenport et
al. (1988, pp.95103), F. Winkler (1996), D. Cox et al. (1997, pp.4799), H. M. Mller (1998), W. V. Vasconcelos
(1998), T. Becker and V. Weispfenning (1993,1998), B. Sturmfels (1996), G. Pistone and H. P. Wynn (1996), D. A.
Cox (1998) and D. Cox et al.(1998, pp.150), while literature on Multipolynomial resultants procedure include the
works of G. Salmon (1876), F. Macaulay (1902, 1921), A. L. Dixon (1908), B. L. van Waerden (1950), C. Bajaj et al.
(1988), J. F. Canny (1988), J. F. Canny et al. (1989), I. M. Gelfand et al. (1990), J. Weiss (1993), D. Manocha (1992,
1993, 1994a,b,c, 1998), D. Manocha and J. F. Canny (1991, 1992, 1993), I. M. Gelfand et al. (1994), G. Lyubeznik
(1995), S. Krishna and D. Manocha (1995), J. Guckenheimer et al.(1997), B. Sturmfels (1994, 1998), E. Cattani et al.
(1998) and D. Cox et al. (1998, pp.71122). Besides the Grbner bases and resultant techniques, there exists another
approach for variable elimination developed by WU Wen Tsn (W. T. Wu 1984) using the ideas proposed by J. F.
Ritt (1950). This approach is based on Ritts characteristic set construction and was successfully applied to automated
geometric theorem by Wu. This algorithm is referred by X. S. Gao and S. C. Chou (1990) as the RittWus algorithm
(D. Manocha and F. Canny 1993). C. L. Cheng and J. W. Van Ness (1999) have presented polynomial measurement
error models.
Numeric methods for solving polynomials can be grouped into iterative and homotopy methods. For homotopy we
refer to A. P. Morgan (1992). Also in this category are geometric methods which have found application in curve and
surface intersection whose convergence are however said to be slow (D. Manocha 1994c). In general, for low degree
curve intersection, the algebraic methods have been found to be the fastest in practice. In Sections (2321) and (2322)
of Chapter 2, we present in a nut shell the theories of Grbner bases and Multipolynomial resultants.
The problem of nonlinear adjustment in Geodesy as in other fields continues to attract more attention from the modern
day researchers as evidenced in the works of R. Mautz (2001) and L. Guolin (2000) who presents a procedure that tests
using the Fdistribution whether a nonlinear model can be linearized or not. The solution to the minimization problem
of the nonlinear GaussMarkov model unlike its linear counter part does not have a direct method for solving it and
as such, always relies on the iterative procedures such as the Steepestdescent method, Newtons method and the
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
GaussNewtons method discussed by P. Teunissen (1990). In particular, P. Teunissen (1990) recommends the GaussNewtons method as it exploits the structure of the objective function (sum of squares) that is to be minimized. P.
Teunissen and E. H. Knickmeyer (1988) considers in a statistical way how the nonlinearity of a function manifests
itself during the various stages of adjustment. E. Grafarend and B. Schaffrin (1989, 1991) while extending the work
of T. Krarup (1982) on nonlinear adjustment with respect to geometric interpretation have presented the necessary
and sufficient conditions for least squares adjustment of nonlinear GaussMarkov model and provided the geometrical
interpretation of these conditions.
Other geometrical approaches include the works of G. Blaha and R. P. Besette (1989) and K. Borre and S. Lauritzen
(1983) while non geometrically treatment of nonlinear problems have been presented by K. K. Kubik (1967), T. Saito
(1973), H. J. Schek and P. Maier (1976), A. Pope (1982) and H. G. Bhr (1988). A comprehensive review to the
iterative procedures for solving the nonlinear equations is presented in the work of P. Lohse (1994). M. Gullikson and
I. Sderkvist (1995) have developed algorithms for fitting surfaces which have been explicitly or implicitly defined to
some measured points with negative weights being acceptable by the algorithm.
Our approach in the present study goes back to the work of C. F. Gauss (Published posthumously e.g. Appendix A.4)
and C. G. I. Jacobi (1841). Within the framework of arithmetic mean, C. F. Gauss (Published posthumously e.g.
Appendix A.4) and C. G. I. Jacobi (1841) suggest that given linear(ized) observation equations with unknowns
combinations, each consisting of
equations be solved for the unknown elements and the weighted
arithmetic mean be applied to get the final solution. Whereas C. F. Gauss (Published posthumously e.g. Appendix A.4)
proposes weighting by using the products of the square of the measured distances from the unknown point to known
points and the distances of the side of the error triangles, C. G. I. Jacobi (1841) proposed the use of the square of the
determinants as weights. In tracing the method of least squares to the arithmetic mean, A. T. Hornoch (1950) shows
that the weighted arithmetic mean proposed by C. G. I. Jacobi (1841) leads to the least squares solution only if the
weights used are the actual weights and the pseudoobservations formed by the combinatorial pairs are uncorrelated.
Using a numerical example, S. Wellisch (1910, pp. 4149) has shown the results of least squares solution to be identical
to those of the GaussJacobi combinatorial algorithm once proper weighting is applied.
Ffe
(;g
P. Werkmeister (1920) illustrated that for planar resection case with three directional observations from the unknown
point to three known stations, the area of the triangle (error figure) formed by the resulting three combinatorial coordinates of the new point is proportional to the determinant of the dispersion matrix of the coordinates of the new station.
In the present study, these concepts of the combinatorial linear adjustment are extended to nonlinear adjustment. In
chapter 2, the linear and nonlinear GaussMarkov models are introduced in Section (21). Section (22) presents
and proves the GaussJacobi combinatorial lemma which is required for the solution of the nonlinear GaussMarkov
model. We illustrate using a leveling network and planar ranging problem that the results of GaussJacobi combinatorial algorithm are identical to those of linear GaussMarkov model if the actual variancecovariance matrices are
used.
To test the algebraic computational tools of Grbner bases and Multipolynomial resultants presented in Chapter 2,
geodetic problems of threedimensional resection, Minimum Distance Mapping and GPS pseudoranging fourpoint
P4P have been used in Chapter 3. In general, the search towards the solution of the threedimensional resection
problem traces its origin to the work of a German mathematician J. A. Grunert (1841) whose publication appeared
in the year 1841. J. A. Grunert (1841) solved the threedimensional resection problem what was then known as the
Pothenots problem in a closed form by solving an algebraic equation of degree four. The problem had hitherto been
solved by iterative means mainly in Photogrammetry and Computer Vision. Procedures developed later for solving
the threedimensional resection problem revolved around the improvements of the approach of J. A. Grunert (1841)
with the aim of searching for the optimal means of distances determination. Whereas J. A. Grunert (1841) solves
the problem by substitution approach in three steps, the more recent desire has been to solve the distance equations
in lesser steps as exemplified in the works of S. Finsterwalder and W. Scheufele (1937), E. L. Merritt (1949), M. A.
Fischler and R. C. Bolles (1981), S. Linnainmaa et al. (1988) and E. Grafarend, P. Lohse and B. Schaffrin (1989).
Other research done on the subject of resection include the works of F. J. Mller (1925), E. Grafarend and J. Kunz
(1965), R. Horaud et al. (1989), P. Lohse (1990), and E. Grafarend and J. Shan (1997a, 1997b). An extensive review
of some of the procedures above are presented by F. J. Mller (1925) and R. M. Haralick et al. (1991, 1994).
R. M. Haralick et al. (1994) reviewed the performance of six direct solutions (J. A. Grunert 1841, S. Finsterwalder
and W. Scheufele 1937, E. L. Merritt 1949, M. A. Fischler and R. C. Bolles 1981, Linnainmaa et al. 1988, and E.
Grafarend, P. Lohse and B. Schaffrin 1989) with the aim of evaluating the numerical stability of the solutions and the
effect of permutation within the various solutions. All the six approaches follow the outline adopted by J. A. Grunert
(1841) with the major differences being the change in variables, the reduction of these variables, and the combination
of different pairs of equations. The study revealed that the higher the order of the polynomials, the more complex
the computations became and thus the less accurate the solutions were due numerical instabilities. Consequently, S.
Finsterwalders (SF) procedure which solves a third order polynomial is ranked first, J. A Grunert (JG), Fischler and
Bolles (FB), and Grafarend et al. (GLS) solutions are ranked second, Linnainmaa et al. solution which generates
an eighth order polynomial is ranked third. Though it does not solve the eight order polynomial, the complexity of
the polynomial is still found to be higher than those of the other procedures. An amazing result is that of Merritts
procedure which is ranked last despite the fact that it is a fourth order polynomial and is similar to Grunerts approach
except for the pairs of equations used. R. M. Haralick et al. (1994) attributes the poor performance of Merritts
procedure to the conversion procedure adopted by E. L Merritt (1949) in reducing the equations from forth to third
order. For planar resection problem, solutions have been proposed e.g. by D. Werner (1913), G. Brandsttter (1974)
and J. van Mierlo (1988).
In Sections (321), we present a solution of the threedimensional resection problem by solving the Grunert distances
equations using Grbner bases and Multipolynomial resultants techniques. The resulting fourth order univariate
polynomial is solved for the unknown distance and the admissible solution substituted in other elements of Grbner
basis to determine the remaining two distances. Once we have obtained the spatial distances, the position is computed using any of the four approaches of the threedimensional ranging problem (Bogenschnitt); Grbner basis,
Multipolynomial resultants, elimination by substitution and elimination using matrix approach. For the orientation
step which concludes the solution of the threedimensional resection problem, we refer to the works of J. L. Awange
(1999) and E. Grafarend and J. L. Awange (2000) who solved the threedimensional orientation problem by using the
simple Procrustes algorithm. Here the simple Procrustes problem or partial Procrustes problem, a special case of the
general Procrustes problem, is understood to mean the fit of the rotation matrix which transforms a set of Cartesian
coordinates into another set of Cartesian coordinates. The general Procrustes problem includes besides the rotational
elements also translation, dilatation and reflection. A list of references is I. Borg and P. Groenen (1997), F. B. Brokken
(1983), T. F. Cox and M. A. Cox (1994), F. Crosilla (1983a,1983b), B. Green (1952), M. Gullikson (1995a, 1995b), S.
Kurz (1996), R. Mathar (1997), P. H. Schnemann (1996), L. N. Trefethen and D. Bau (1997), and I. L. Dryden (1998).
In order to relate a point on the Earths topographical surface uniquely (onetoone) to a point on the International
Reference Ellipsoid, E. Grafarend and P. Lohse (1991) have proposed the use of the Minimum Distance Mapping.
Other procedures that have been proposed are either iterative, approximate closed, closed or higher order equations.
Iterative procedures include the works of N. Bartelme and P. Meissl. (1975), W. Benning (1987), K. M. Borkowski
(1987, 1989), N. Croceto (1993), A. Fitzgibbon et al. (1999), T. Fukushima (1999), W. Gander et al. (1994), B. Heck
(1987), W. Heiskannen and H. Moritz (1976), R. Hirvonen and H. Moritz (1963), P. Loskowski (1991), K. C. Lin and
J. Wang (1995), M. K. Paul (1973), L. E. Sjoeberg (1999), T. Soler and L. D. Hothem (1989), W. Torge (1976), T.
Vincenty (1978) and R. J. You (2000).
Approximate closed procedures include B. R. Bowring (1976, 1985), A. Fotiou (1998), B. HofmanWellenhof et al.
(1992), M. Pick (1985) and T. Vincenty (1980), while closed procedures include W. Benning (1987), H. Frhlich and
H. H. Hansen (1976), E. Grafarend et al. (1995) and M. Heikkinen (1982). Procedures that required the solution
of higher order equations include M. Lapaine (1990), M. J. Ozone (1985), P. Penev (1978), H. Snkel (1976), and P.
Vaniceck and E. Krakiwski (1982). In Section (322), the Minimum Distance Mapping problem is solved using the
Grbner bases approach. A univariate polynomial of fourth order is obtained together with 13 other elements of the
Grbner basis. The obtained univariate polynomial and the linear terms are compared to those of E. Grafarend and P.
Lohse (1991). Other reference include E. Grafarend and W. Keller (1995) and Mukherjee, K. (1996)
The GPS fourpoint pseudoranging problem is concerned with the determination of the coordinates of a stationary
receiver together with its range bias. Several closed form procedures have been put forward for obtaining closed form
solution of the problem. Amongst the procedures include the vectorial approach as evidenced in the works of L. O.
Krause (1987), J. S. Abel and J. W. Chaffee (1991), P. Singer et al. (1993), J. W. Chaffee and J. S. Abel (1994), H.
Lichtenegger (1995) and A. Kleusberg (1994, 1999). E. Grafarend and J. Shan (1996) propose two approaches; one
approach is based on a closed form solution of the nonlinear pseudoranging equations in geocentric coordinates while
the other approach solves the same equations in barycentric coordinates.
S. C. Han et al. (2001) have developed an algorithm for very accurate absolute positioning through Global Positioning
System (GPS) satellite clock estimation while S. Bancroft (1985) provides an algebraic closed form solution of the
overdetermined GPS pseudoranging observations. In Section (3231) we solve using Grbner basis and Multipolynomial resultants GPS fourpoint pseudoranging problem. Chapter 3 ends by using the GaussJacobi combinatorial
algorithm in Section (3232) to solve the overdetermined GPS point pseudoranging problem. The LPS and GPS
Reference Frames relevant for these selected geodetic problems have been considered in Section (31). For literature
on threedimensional positioning models, we refer to E. W. Grafarend (1975), V. Ashkenazi and S, Grist (1982), G. W.
Hein (1982a, 1982b), J. Zaiser (1986), F. W. O. Aduol (1989), U. Klein (1997) and S. M. Musyoka 1999).
Chapter 4 extends Chapter 3 by solving the threedimensional resection problem based on the test network Stuttgart
Central. In Section (42), using the computed symbolic solutions obtained in Section (321), the coordinates of
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
Dach K1 are determined explicitly. Three stations Liederhalle, Eduardpfeiffer and Haussmanstr. are used. In Section
(43) all the 7 network points are used to determine the coordinates of Dach K1, thus leading to the solution of
overdetermined threedimensional resection problem.
Overdetermined planar resection problem has been treated graphically by E. Hammer (1896), C. Runge (1900), P.
Werkmeister (1916) and P. Werkmeister (1920). E. Gotthardt (1940,1974) dealt with the overdetermined two dimensional resection where more than four points were considered with the aim of studying the critical configuration that
would yield a solution. The work was later to be extended by K. Killian (1990). A special case of an overdetermined
twodimensional resection has also been considered by H. G. Bhr (1991) who uses six known stations and proposes
the measuring of three horizontal angles which are related to the two unknown coordinates by nonlinear equations.
By adopting approximate coordinates of the unknown point, an iterative adjustment procedure is performed to get the
improved twodimensional coordinates of the unknown point. It should be noted that the procedure is based on the
coordinate system of the six known stations. K. Rinner (1962) has also contributed to the problem of overdetermined
twodimensional resection.
Once we have developed and tested the algorithms in Chapters 2 to 4, Chapter 5 considers two case studies; the
conversion of the geocentric GPS points for the Baltic Sea level Project into the GaussJacobi ellipsoidal coordinates
and the determination of the seven datum transformation parameters. We have used the skew symmetric matrix to
construct the orthogonal matrix
in Chapter 5. Other approaches have been presented in G. H. Shut (1958/59) and
E. H. Thompson (1959 a, b). Datum transformation models have been dealt with e.g. in E. Grafarend, F. Okeke (1998),
F. Krumm and F. Okeke (1995), E. Grafarend and F. Okeke (1998) and E. Grafarend and R. Syffus (1998).
hi[
Chapter 2
Nonlinear Adjustment
In the present Chapter, we depart from the traditional iterative procedures for estimating the unknown fixed parameters
of the nonlinear GaussMarkov model and present a combinatorial approach that traces its roots back to the work of
C. F. Gauss that was published posthumously (Appendix A.4). C. F. Gauss first proposed the combinatorial approach
using the products of squared distances (from unknown point to known points) and the square of the perpendicular
distances from the sides of the error triangle to the unknown point as the weights. According to W. K. Nicholson (1999,
pp. 272273), the motto in Gauss seal read pauca des matura meaning few but ripe. This belief led C. F. Gauss not
to publish most of his important contributions. For instance, W. K. Nicholson (1999, pp. 272273) writes Although
not all his results were recorded in the diary (many were set down only in letters to friends), several entries would have
each given fame to their author if published. Gauss new about the quartenions before Hamilton.... The combinatorial
method, like many of his works, was later to be published after his death. Several years later, the method was to be
developed further by C. G. I. Jacobi (1841) who used the square of the determinants as the weights in estimating the
unknown parameters from the arithmetic mean. P. Werkmeister (1920) later established the relationship between the
area of the error figure formed by the combinatorial approach and the standard error of the determined point. We will
refer to this combinatorial approach as the GaussJacobi combinatorial algorithm.
First we define both the linear (both fixed and the random effect model) and nonlinear GaussMarkov models in
section (21). While the solution of the linear GaussMarkov model by Best Linear Uniformly Unbiased Estimator
(BLUUE) is straight forward, the solution of the nonlinear GaussMarkov model has no straight forward procedure
to
. We therefore introduce in
owing to the nonlinearity of the injective function (or map function) that maps
Section (22) the GaussJacobi combinatorial algorithm which we propose to use in solving nonlinear GaussMarkov
model. In Section (23), we demonstrate how the procedure can be used to solve the nonlinear GaussMarkov model.
j
21
Presented in this Section are both the linear and nonlinear GaussMarkov models. We start by the definition of the
linear GaussMarkov model as follows
npo
lkm,
rk
sto %u9j
s"q*zyv{2n}O$yv{2n+or~v's(#_9s*
rkv
kd,
qio j
vector
of unknown fixed
positivedefinite dispersion matrix
wp*ir{n&O_;wf*z
wx
(21)
The unknown vector of fixed parameters in the special linear GaussMarkov model (21) is normally estimated by
Best Linear Uniformly Unbiased Estimation BLUUE, defined in E. Grafarend and B. Schaffrin (1993, p. 93) as
Definition 20b ( Best Linear Uniformly Unbiased Estimation BLUUE):
An
vector
is
for (Best Linear Uniformly Unbiased Estimation respectively
k,
"q *Xn
mB7y
8
the
BD
y"{ ^q  *zyv{LXnlR*iqZ^qro j
(22)
and on the other hand in comparison to all other linear uniformly unbiased estimators give the minimum variance
and therefore the minimum mean estimation error in the sense of
where
is a real
(23)
q in (21) leads to
Y
xq *`s w s Y s w" Y n
(24)
(25)
r{ 1q *f's w Y s Y 0
The dispersion matrix (variancecovariance matrix) w is unknown and is obtained by means of estimators of type
MINQUE, BIQUUE or BIQE as in C. R. Rao (1967, 1971, 1973 and 1978), C. R. Rao and J. Kleffe (1979), B.
Y
Schaffrin (1983), and E. Grafarend (1985). In the event that s w s is not regular (i.e. s has a rank deficiency), the
with its regular dispersion matrix
rank deficiency can be overcome by procedures such as those presented by E. Mittermayer (1972), E. Grafarend and
B. Schaffrin (1974), E. Grafarend and B. Schaffrin (1993, pp. 107165), F. K. Brunner (1979), A. Peremulter (1979),
P. Meissl (1982), E. Grafarend and F. Sanso (1985) and K. R. Koch (1999, pp.181197) among others.
Definition 21a ( GaussMarkov model with random effects):
The model
n*vS9RB/
vy {n& *yv{o %u9
r{n&R*zr{2nD` dr{L o
{2n2 *
(26)
y"{O$yv{2n&Ow n (w CX
) A }*_9*i
of observations, a real ?km, vector of unknown random effects
with a real mkm, random vector npo
%u/ of rank L;*A is called the GaussMarkov
(zufallseffekte), a non stochastic real valued matrix o
model with random effects.
2kR,
The
random effect vector of the model (26) can be predicted by the Best Linear Uniformly Unbiased Prediction
BLUUP defined by (E. Grafarend and B. Schaffrin 1993, p.304 ) as
Definition 21b ( Best Linear Uniformly Unbiased Prediction BLUUP):
An
vector is called h omogenious BLUUP (Best Linear Uniformly Unbiased Prediction) of
special linear GaussMarkov model with random effects (26) if
(1st) is a homogenious linear form
}kl,
in the
*Xn
(27)
(28)
(2nd) in comparison to all other linear uniformly unbiased predictors give the minimum mean square predictor
error in the sense of
2 X
>@*
>*yv{cx BD1N BDTR* Lr{1x BD *
(29)
matrix .
in (26) leads to
r *`' w n Y Y w n Y n
(210)
{1 R*`' wn Y Y
r
%u9 exist.
if r{n&R*zr{2nDfdr{L o
(211)
The difference between the linear and nonlinear GaussMarkov models defined above lies on the injective function
In the linear GaussMarkov model, is linear and thus satisfies the algebraic axiom
sY}S
&*zsY2Cs
N#o #YL#
o j
sT0
(213)
sT0
In Geodesy, many nonlinear functions are normally assumed to be moderately nonlinear thus permitting linearization
by Taylor series expansion and then applying the linear models to estimate the unknown fixed parameters (e.g. K.
R. Koch 1999, pp.155156). Whereas this may often hold, the effect of the nonlinearity of the models may still be
significant on the outcome and as such, we revert in the next Section to the GaussJacobi combinatorial algorithm.
22
In this Section we present the GaussJacobi combinatorial algorithm which is neither iterative nor requires linearization of the nonlinear observation equations for the solution of nonlinear GaussMarkov model. Linearization is permitted only for the nonlinear error propagation/variancecovariance propagation in order to generate the dispersion
matrixn (i.e. the second moments). We start by stating the GaussJacobi combinatorial lemma in Box (21) and
refer to S. Wellisch (1910, pp. 4647) and T. Hornoch (1950) for the proof that the results are equivalent to those
of least squares solution. The levelling network is presented to illustrate the GaussJacobi combinatorial approach.
We conclude the Section by Theorem (21) which allows the applicability of the GaussJacobi combinatorial algorithm in solving nonlinear Geodetic observation equations once they have been converted into algebraic (polynomial)
equations.
We state the C. F. Gauss and C. G. I Jacobi (1841) combinatorial lemma as follows:
10
For
Y ]vd Y a=Ba Y
*
]vd
a=Ba
*
[ ]vd [ a=Ba [
*
0302030
(214)
aO! )}o{O,./2030302#
stor~P %u/j
!#$(!$ )o{c,$.93020303
]1Y
#]
[03020
^
Y
^
]
Y
N
[
]
[
z
3
0
2
0
3
0
0
^
Y
c
a
Y
N
[
a
}
[
i
2
0
3
0
2
0
0
]*
Y
[ i
0203020 /av*
Y
[ i
0203030
{]C#a
acY
#a
[_102030
(215)
Y
'
[ 102030 being the weights of the combinatorial solutions given by the square of the determinants as
Y
*`' Y
BD
Y
[X*`'
([ZBD[2
(216)
0302030
The results (215) coincides with the center of the error figure (see Figure in Appendix A.4 for *Q ) formed by the
with
coordinates of the combinatorial solutions and are identical to those of least squares solution for linear observation
equations.
We illustrate the GaussJacobi combinatorial approach using the levelling network below.
Levelling network: Consider a levelling network with fourpoints in Figure (2.1) below.
Y
be given as
Y and those of
and [ be sought. We have
;
.d * 9. 'BD.O( *
11
[
number of combinatorial routes that can be used to obtain the heights of points
and . These are levelling routes
and
These combinatorials sum up to the outside loop
The observation equations are written as
of the network
+YB
B \XBYL_
B [XBDC\ B
Y?B
BD [ZBD+YL0
[B+YBC\BD[_0
]
B Y *ia Y
] [ B Y *ia
] [ B]
*ia [
(217)
] \ B Y *ia \
] \ B]
*ia
] \ B] [ *ia
which can be expressed in the form of the special linear GaussMarkov model (21) in page (7) as
acY+lY ,
a lY ,
]
a[
y a_\lY * B , , , ]%
[
(218)
a B, , ];\
a
B,,
where aY#a 302030203#a are the observed height differences, ] #]%[#]%\ are the unknown heights of points [_\
respectively. Let the dispersion matrix r{2n}P*pw be chosen such that the correlation matrix is unit (i.e. w*f[P*
w Y _3) )UZB L)U1) cL%wv Y *z*z ), the decomposition matrix and the normal equation matrix s w Y s
be given respectively by
a Y d Y
a
l Y
B,B,
Y
(219)
8* BFa \ l Y a l Y s w s* B, B, 0
B
,
B
,
a
BZa
aO
BZaO
We compute the heights of points and [ using the combinatorial procedure as follows:
1st, 2nd and 3nd Combinatorials (levelling along routes: L c#,?>@*i+YBr BrC\B+YLL .>@*z B[&B
C\XBD
and L O>@*[ZBD+YB\XBD[ ):
(219) and (24) leads to the partial solutions
a aO[
acY& Y B a B a_\
. B .
. . .
aY B a\
;q
* Y a [ B aO
;q Y
*
Y
. .
. .
aO aO
a Y Y a
. B .
. B . . Ba_\
(220)
_
a
\
a
. B .
_
a
\
a
;q [
*
Y . . B . Ba
^Y a a
. B .
B . a \
The heights of the stations ] ]%[#];\ would then be given by the summation of the combinatorial solutions
a Y Y B a [ B a
. . .
aY B a
. .
12
+YB
D
B [XB+Y ) and with (24) we have
Y
[
a
a
aY&d^Y
a Y . B . B .
BFa
l Y
[
a
Y
Y
Y
Y
a Y a [ B Y Ba
q Z*f's w sx s w
*
. . .
acY B a
. .
which are identical to the GaussJacobi combinatorial solution in (221) "0
Levelling along route
(222)
Having stated and illustrated using a levelling example the GaussJacobi combinatorial lemma for linear equations,
we state below the theorem that allows the solution of nonlinear equations in Geodesy.
Box 22 (Theorem 21):
Given algebraic (polynomial) observational equations ( observations, where is the dimension of the observation
space ) of order in
variables (unknowns) ( is the dimension of the parameter space ), the application of
least squares solution (LESS) to the algebraic observation equations gives
as the order of the set of nonlinear
algebraic normal equations. There exists normal equations of the polynomial order
to be solved.
Proof: Given nonlinear algebraic equations
expressed as
L!o{2 Y 030203 j 
Y o{2 Y 1030203# j 
o{2YL1030203# j 
0
0
0
o{Y020302# j O0
._;BS,
._^Bm,
(223)
3+
* Y
z0302030l
1 ! o{Y020302# j 
{2 Y 1030203 j 
(224)
. The
and obtain the partial derivatives (first derivatives) of (224) with respect to the unknown variables
order of (224) which is then reduces to
upon differentiating the objective function with respect to the
variables
Thus resulting in normal equations of the polynomial order
.
Y 1030203# j 0
._B,
'.^Bl,
Example (pseudoranging):
For pseudoranging or distance equations, the order of the polynomials in the algebraic observational equations is
. If we take the pseudoranges squared or distances squared, a necessary procedure in order to make the
observational equations algebraic or polynomial, and implement LESS, the objective function which is of order
reduces by one to order
upon differentiating once. The normal equations are of order
as expected.
*t.
*
The significance of the theorem above is that by using the GaussJacobi combinatorial approach to solve the nonlinear
GaussMarkov model, all observation equations of geodetic interest are successfully converted to algebraic or
polynomial equations.
23
Having presented and proved the GaussJacobi combinatorial lemma using simple linear levelling and linearized
ranging examples, we proceed to solve the nonlinear GaussMarkov model in two steps:
Step 1: Combinatorial minimal subsets of observations are constructed and rigorously solved by means of the
Multipolynomial resultant or Groebner basis (J. L. Awange and E. Grafarend 2001).
13
Step 2: The combinatorial solution points of step 1 are reduced to their final adjusted values by means of an
adjustment procedure where the Best Linear Uniformly Unbiased Estimator (BLUUE) is used to estimate the
vector of fixed parameters within the linear GaussMarkov model with the dispersion matrix of the real valued
random vector of pseudoobservations from Step 1 generated via the nonlinear error propagation law also
known in this case as the nonlinear variancecovariance propagation.
de
we construct the minimal combinatorial subsets comprising equations solvable in closed form using
Since
either Grbner bases or Multipolynomial resultants which we present in Section (232). We begin by the following
elementary definitions:
Definition 23 (Permutation):
Given a set with elements
, the arrangement obtained by placing !
in some sequence
is called permutation. If we choose any of the elements say first, then each of the remaining elements
can
be put in the second position, while the third position is occupied by the unused letter either or . For the set
, the following permutations can be made:
{) O$o
{2) o
#)
) $O)
) )# %O)
"
O$
(225)
From (225) there exist three ways of filling the first position, two ways of filling the second position and one
. In general, for
way of filling the third position. Thus the number of permutations is given by
different elements, the number of permutation is equal to
kr.vk,*:
Dk02030Zkrvkr.Pk,*i+
B Bl,
Bi,
As a recipe to what Grbner bases can do, consider that most problems in nature, here in Geodesy, Photogrammetry,
Machine Vision, Robotics, Surveying etc. can be modelled by sets of nonlinear equations forming polynomials. These
nonlinear systems of equations that have to be solved can be used to form linear combinations of other polynomials
called Ideals by being multiplied by arbitrary polynomials and summed up. In this case, a collection of these nonlinear algebraic equations forming Ideals are referred to us the set of polynomials generating the Ideal and forms
the elements of this Ideal. The B. Buchberger algorithm then takes this set of generating polynomials and derive,
using a procedure that will be explained shortly, another set of polynomials called the Grbner basis which has some
special properties . One of the special properties of the Grbner bases is that its elements can divide the elements of
14
the generating set giving zero remainder. This property is achieved by the B. Buchberger algorithm by canceling the
leading terms of the polynomials in the generating set and in so doing deriving the Grbner basis of the Ideal (whose
elements are the generating nonlinear algebraic equations). With the lexicographic type of ordering chosen, one of
the elements of the Grbner basis is often a univariate polynomial whose roots can be obtained by the roots command
in MATLAB. The other special property is that two sets of polynomial equations will generate the same Ideal if and
only if their Grbner bases are equal with respect to any term ordering. This property is important in that the solution
of the Grbner basis will satisfy the original solution required by the generating set of nonlinear equations.
With this brief outline, we now define the term Grbner basis. In the outline above and definitions below, we have
used several terms that require definitions. In Appendix A.1 (p.97), we present the definitions of the terms as follows;
monomial (Definition A1), polynomial (Definition A2), linear algebra (Definition A3), ring (Definition A4), polynomial ring (Definition A5), Ideal (Definition A6), monomial ordering (Definition A7) and leading coefficients (LC),
leading terms (LT), leading monomials (LM) and multideg (Definition A8). Indeed what we present here is just a
definition of the term Grbner basis and as such, any reader interested on the subject may consult text books such as
J. H. Davenport et al. (1988), T. Becker and V. Weispfenning (1993, 1998), B. Sturmfels (1996), F. Winkler (1996), D.
Cox et al. (1997), B. Buchberger and F. Winkler (1998), and W. V. Vasconcelos (1998). We start by first defining an
Ideal and the Hilbert Basis Theorem that guarantees that every Ideal has a finite set of Grbner basis before defining
the term Grbner basis and briefly looking at the B. Buchberger algorithm which is the engine behind the computation
of Grbner bases.
Definition 25 (J. H. Davenport et al. 1988, p.96, D. Cox et al. 1997, p.29):
An Ideal is generated by a family of generators as consisting of the set of linear combinations of these genera) then
%& be polynomials in ('
tors with polynomial coefficients. Let
]^Y_02030#]
Y02030$
Y02030$%&e *+*
&
. One begins
*
Y
*
0
0
&Z*i9
%
(228)
!
! o
YL03020 e
YL03020 oQ ]1YL02030#]
^] Y_02030#]
YL03020 Xe
Perhaps a curious reader may begin to wonder why the term Ideal was selected. To quench this curiosity we refer to
W. K. Nicholson (1999, p.220) and quote from T. Becker and V. Weispfenning (1993, p.59 ) on how the term Ideal and
ring came to be. They write:
On the origin of the term Ideal, the concept is attributed to Dedekind who introduced it as a set theoretical
version of Kummers Ideal number to circumvent the failure of unique factorization in certain natural
extension of the domain 9 . The relevance of Ideal in the theory of polynomial rings was highlighted by the
Hilbert Basis Theorem. The systematic development of Ideal theory in more general rings is largely due
to E. Noether. In the older literature the term module is sometimes used for Ideal (cf. F. Macaulay
1916). The term ring seems to be due to D. Hilbert; Kronecker used the term order for ring.
' ^] Y_#]
]
Y
]
15
]%[ ) as
l._ Y
] Y ]
]
S z
*
l.
[ ]
] [ ]
[
l
*
l._V [(Y ] [ ] Y S]
Y d
V *i
(229)
* ]
Y l._ Y
] Y ]
S
]
S #]
l.
[ ]
] [ ]
[ d #]
[ d.V [Y ] [ ] Y
Example 22: Given the polynomials in ' ]^YL#] ]%[O#];\ ) as
]
Y B._ W ] Y S]
B. W ]
S]
[ BD.V W ] [ B] \
l. W ] \ S W
l W
dV W
]
Y B._ Y ] Y S]
B. Y ] S]
[ BD.V Y ] [ B] \
l. Y ] \ S
Y l
Y dV
Y
]
Y B._
] Y S]
B.
]
S]
[ BD.V
] [ B] \
l.
] \ S
l
dV
]
Y B._ [ ] Y S]
B. [ ]
S]
[ BD.V [ ] [ B] \
l. [ ] \ S
[ l
[ dV
[
then
Ideal 1
BD.OWN]
]
[ B._V(WN][ZB] \
l. W3]%\d W
l W
dV W
BD.O3Y$]
]
[ B._V2Y$][ZB] \
l. Y]%\d
Y l
Y dV
Y
BD.O
]
]
[ B._V
][ZB] \
l.
]%\d
dV
BD.O([(]
]
[ B._VN[(][ZB] \
l. [N]%\d
[ l
[ dV
[
Example 23: Given the polynomials in ' ] Y #] ] [ #] \ ) as
BFB]^Y2Cd
]^YN];\R*
BB] Cl
] ] \ *z
BmB] [
Cl
] [
] \ *z
]
Y l
]
d
]
[ BD
*
The
BF Br]^Y2%
]^YN];\2BiBr]
] ];\O3BUDBr]%[%
]%[2];\
]
Y
1 c:1*
]
Y
]
Y
]
Y
]
Y
BD.OW2]^Y&S]
BD./Y(]^Y&S]
BD.
]^Y&S]
BD.c[3]^Y&S]
S]
Y SV e
W
*
Y *
*
[ *
W
Y e
[ 0
(230)
(231)
(232)
]
[ B
e
Having defined and given examples of an Ideal, we present the definitions of the division algorithm exploited by
B. Buchberger algorithm before defining the Grbner basis (Standard Basis) of an Ideal. We begin by stating the
Hilbert Basis Theorem, which gives the assurance of the existence of the Grbner basis. In general, we will denote
/) a collection of polynomials
%& with variables in
by .'
and coefficients in any field .
)
.'
forms a polynomial ring (Definition A5, Appendix A.1 ).
1] YL102030#]
] Y C03030#]
YL103030$
OY02030$
W
Lemma 22 (Division Algorithm, D. Cox et al. 1997, theorem 3, p.61, theorem 4, p.47):
;
) .
%& be an ordered Stuple polynomial in 8'
Fix a monomial order > on 9
, and let <
)
)
& &
Then every
.'
can be written as
where
.'
and either
or a linear combination with coefficients in of monomials, none of which is divisible by any
) has a finite
&
of
The Hilbert Basis Theorem assures that every Ideal 1=2 .'
generating set, that is 1
for some 4
4
4 &
>4 & 71
or ] Y 103020 ]
=*
&6' Y N03020 $&6= (0
* Y 03020 e
*`'Y_103020 (
]1Y02030#]
*z Y Y
02030 L
!#o ] Y C03030#]
t ] Y 03020 ]
Y C03030 o ;0
The finite generating set ? in Hilbert Basis Theorem is what is known as a basis. Suppose every nonzero polynomial
is written in decreasing order of its monomials:
,
! Y
!]%!$!A*z
@ 9/]!&ed]!CB Y
(233)
if we let the system of generators of the Ideal be in a set ? , a polynomial is reduced with respect to ? if no leading
monomial of an element of ? (LM ( ? )) divides the leading monomial of (LM( )). The polynomial is said to be
completely reduced with respect to ? if no monomials of is divisible by the leading monomial of an element of ?
(J. H. Davenport et al. 1988, pp. 9697).
The introduction of the division algorithm given in Lemma 26 above fits well to the case of univariate polynomials
as the remainder can uniquely be determined. In the case of multivariate polynomials, the remainder may not be
16
{YL$

uniquely determined as this depends on the order of the divisors. The division of the polynomial < by
may
not necessarily give the same remainder as the division of < by
in whose case the order has been changed.
This problem is overcome if we pass over to the Standard basis having been assured of its existence for every Ideal
by the Hilbert Basis Theorem in Lemma 26.
{
$Y
is also
Definition 26 (J. H. Davenport et al. 1988 p.97, D. Cox et al. 1997, Definition 1, p.100):
A system of generators (or basis) ? of an Ideal 1 is called a Standard Basis or Grbner basis (with respect to
the order <) if every reduction of D1 to a reduced polynomial (with respect to ? ) always gives zero as a
remainder. The above definition is a special case of a more general definition given as: Fix a monomial order
) Given
) then reduces to zero Modulo ? ,
and let ?
4
>4 & E2 8'
8'
written as
(234)
3FHG
zo
*{ Y 10302030  f ] Y 0302030#] 0
if
mod ] Y 0302030#]
D9
* Y 4 Y 02030d 4
such that whenever !I4!J*
@ 9 we have multideg( ) K multideg( !L4!
(235)
).
Suggested by W. Grbner in 1949 and developed by his student at the time B. Buchberger in 1965, B. Buchberger
decided to honour his thesis supervisor W. Grbner(18991980) by naming the Standard basis for Ideals in polyno/) as Grbner basis (B. Buchberger 1965). Grbner bases has become a household name in
mial ring .'
algebraic manipulations and finds application in fields such as Statistics and Engineering. It has found use as a tool
for discovering and proving theorems to solving systems of polynomial equations as elaborated in publications by B.
Buchberger and F. Winkler (1998). Grbner bases also give a solution to the Ideal membership problem. By reducing
a given polynomial with respect to the Grbner basis ? , is said to be a member of the Ideal if the zero remainder
) and let
)
is obtained. Thus let ?
4
4 & be a Grbner basis of an Ideal 1M2 .'
.'
be a polynomial, then 31 if and only if the remainder on division of by ? is zero. Grbner bases can also be used
to show the equivalence of polynomial equations. Two sets of polynomial equations will generate the same Ideal if
and only if their Grbner bases are equal with respect to any term ordering. This implies that a system of polynomial
%&
equations
will have the same solution with a system arising from any
%& with respect to any term ordering. This is the main property of the Grbner bases that is
Grbner basis of
used to solve a system of polynomial equations as will be explained below.
]1Y02030#]
Q*{ Y 03020 
o
i ] Y C03030#]
o ] Y 03020302#]
B. Buchberger algorithm
Given polynomials 4
>4 & N1 , the B. Buchberger algorithm seeks to derive the standard generators or the
Groebner basis of this Ideal. Systems of equations 4
to be solved in practise are normally
>4 &
formed by these same polynomials which here generating the Ideal. The B. Buchberger algorithm computes the
>4& O1 and computes
Groebner basis by making use of pairs of polynomials from the original polynomials 4
the subtraction polynomial known as the
explained in D. Cox et al. (1997; p. 81) as follows:
Y 03020302
Y * 902030203
cY02030203 o
BLFa )U
BLFa )U ):
d
z
o
] Y 02030] ) be two nonzero polynomials. If multideg 1=* and multideg I49=* , then let
P
* P Y 103020 P , where P !*i"JRQ {UT !T%!# Tfor each ) T . ]S is called the Least Common Multiple (LCM) of LM(
) and LM(4 ) expressed as ] S *z
{2 '1N #4/ . The B%LFa )c of and 4 is given as
]S
]S
X'>49&*
(236)
}6='1 B &6=# 4/ 40
] S , ] S with polynomial coefficients
The expression above gives as a linear combination of the monomials
&6=1 &6I 49
and 4 and thus belongs to the Ideal generated by and 4 .
Definition 27 (
Let 4
.'
B%La )
* { cY 102030 2
Z 9
9) *
X' 9
17
xo
UT T 1($ T I49#
Z' /
9 0 The concept
The implication
of Definition 28 is the following: Given two polynomials 4 3? such that
T
T
I4 then the leading monomials of and 4 are relatively prime leading to
4 WF G
of prime integer is clearly documented in K. Ireland and M. Rosen (1990 pp. 117).
'1N0
9
BLac ) ):
Example 24 (
Consider the two polynomials
Y *i]
Y l._ Y
] Y ]
]
S
(237)
*i]
l.
[ ]
] [ S]
[ l
of Example A1 in Appendix A.1, the XB&%Lac ) can then be computed as follows: First we choose a lexicographic
ordering {2] Y ed] el] [  then
T I 4 Y }*i]
Y U; T T # 4 T
&*z]
I 4 Y N # 4
&*i]
Y ]
]
]
F]
Y d. Y
] Y ]
S]
d B ] ]
Y ]
]
l.
[ ]
] [ ]
[ l
(238)
XI4 Y 4 }*
Y
[
\
*z]
]
Y d./Y
]1Y]
S]
d ]
B]
Y ]
B.
[N]
Y [ ]
][Z\ B]
Y ]
[ B ]
Y
*`B ]
Y BD.O
[N]
Y ]
]%[ZB]
Y ]
[ l._9Y
]1Y]
]
d ]
4
4
Consider Example A2 in Appendix A.1 for pseudoranging problem. The first two polynomials equations are given as
BD.OWN]
]
[ B._V(W2]%[ZB] \
l. W3]%\d W
d W
dV W
W
BD.O3Y$]
]
[ B._V2Y(]%[ZB] \
l. Y]%\d
Y d
Y dV
Y
Y 0
By choosing the lexicographic ordering {] Y em] el] [ em] \  , the ?B polynomial is computed as follows
T
T
UT I 4 [ &T *z]
Y T I4 \ &*z]
Y }6=I4 [ *]
Y }6=I4 \ *]
Y
I 4 [ N # 4 \ #*]
Y
]
Y I4 [ +B ]
Y #4 \ &*=4 [ BZ4 \
XI4 [ 4 \ }*
XI 4[_ 4_\2} *.9]
Y 9YBD T] ]^
Y Y&l.93YBD ]
l.9VY BV ][
.; B YNT];\ZS BD/Y}d B3Y+dV BDV2Y& WXB Y
"
[*]
Y D
B .cWN]^Y&S]
4_\ *]
Y D
B .9Y$]^Y&S]
4
BLa )
(239)
(240)
Example 26 (
):
polynomial, let us consider the minimum distance mapping
As an additional example on the computation of
problem of Example A3 in Appendix A.1. The last two polynomials equations are given as
?B
*z]%[l
]%[N]%\XBd
(241)
*
]
Y l
]
S
]
[ BD
By choosing the lexicographic ordering {3] Y el] el] [ ed] \  , the ZB polynomial is computed as follows
T
T
UT #43}T *] [ $ T # 43&*i]
Y $&6=# 4N}*] [ $&6=# 4N}*z
]
Y
d
]
[ BD
[
ZI4 >4 &*B X]
&l
]
Y ][3]%\XB]
][ZB ] [ d
]%[
4
4
By means of an Example given by J. H. Davenport et al. (1988, pp. 101102) , we illustrate how the B. Buchberger algorithm works. Let us consider the Ideal generated by the polynomial equations
Y *i] [ abB]%b
4
*i];a
bB];a/b
4 [ *i]%
2a
?BDb
Z cY [
(243)
Z
[2
18
Z cY !
]
a
]
a
b 4 B ]
a
b 4[
XI 4 4 [ }*
(244)
*`]
a
bB] ]%
aa b
b BF]
a ]
b
a BD
b
*`BZ]
abdb
We immediately note that the leading term of the resulting polynomial LT( Z# 4 4 [ ) is not divisible by any of
the leading terms of the elements of ? , and thus the remainder upon the division of XI4 4 [ by the polynomials
in ? is not zero (i.e. when reduced with respect to ? ) thus ? is not a Grbner basis. This resulting polynomial
after the formation of the ZB polynomial is denoted 4_\ and its negative (to make calculations more reliable)
added to the initial set of ? leading to
[
4 Y *z] a/bB]b
4
*z];a/
3bB]%ab
(245)
4
[*z]
a
Bb
4_\ *z]
a/bBb
0
The ?B polynomials to be considered are now ZI 4 Y > 4 N
BZ]
a/b ] S4
aBb
a 4 \
(246)
*Q
I4 >4
pair #4 >4 U
(e.g.
T
I4 4
then
v*pab
Bdb
, a non zero value thus the set ? is not a Grbner
*]%a
bBD];a/b%
4 [ *]
a
BDb;
(247)
4 \ *]
a/bBb
4*a/b
Bb
the ZB polynomials to be considered are now ZI 4 [ > 4 \ N% ZI 4 > 42N%ZI4 [ >42 and Z#4 \ >4(0 We then compute
"
Z# 4[_ 4_\2}*i
b 4[?Ba 4_\
(248)
*za/b
BDb
BZ];a/b
b S4
];Ba/b ];
a 4
*`
(249)
*z
and
Z \ >42&*b4 \ B[ ]
a4
*i]
2bc
Bb
which is added to ? as 4 giving
4
*]%a
bBD];a/b%
4 [ *]
a
BDb;
4 \ *]
a/bBb
4*a/b
Bb
[
4*]
a
BDb
The polynomials to be considered are now ZI 4 [ > 42N
Z# 4
> 42( Z# 4 [ 43(XI4 \ 42
illustrate that all this B%LFa )c reduces to zero as follows
Z#4 [ 42&*b
4 [ B]
a 4*i]
a/b
Bb [ Bb [ 4 \ *z
Z# 4 42&*z]%
b 4
Ba
4*QBZ]
[ a
b
[ Sa
b a
4 \ *z
I4
(250)
(251)
and I4 4
(252)
19
Thus equation (252) comprise the Grbner basis of the original set in (243).
LFa )'
The importance of the Sis that they lead to the cancellation of the leading terms of the polynomial pairs
involved. In so doing the polynomial variables are systematically eliminated according to the polynomial ordering
chosen. For example if the lexicographic ordering
is chosen, will be eliminated first, followed by
and the final expression may consist only of the variable . D. Cox et al. (1998, p.15) has indicated the advantage of
lexicographic ordering as being the ability to produce Grbner basis with systematic elimination of variables. Graded
lexicographic ordering on the other hand has the advantage of minimizing the amount of computational space needed
to produce the Grbner basis. The procedure is thus a generalisation of the Gauss elimination procedure for linear
systems of equations. If we now put our system of polynomial equations to be solved in a set ? ,
combinations
can be formed from the set of ? as explained in the definitions above. The theorem, known as the Buchbergers
polynomial criterion, gives the criterion for deciding whether a given basis is a Grbner basis or not. It
suffices to compute all the Sand check whether they reduce to zero. Should one of the polynomials
not reduce to zero, then the basis fails to be a Grbner basis. Since the reduction is a linear combination of the elements
of ? , it can be added to the set ? without changing the Ideal generated. B. Buchberger (1979) gives an optimisation
criterion that reduces the number of the Salready considered in the algorithm. The criterion states
that if there is an element of ? such that the leading monomial of (LM( )) divides the LCM( >4 \? ), and if
>4 have already been considered, then there is no need of considering
>4 as this reduces to zero.
]e l
a eb
b
BZ%c)U
lBc)
Z1 Z@ 9
LFa )U
LFa )U
Z 9
o
The essential observation in using the Grbner bases to solve a system of polynomial equations is that the variety
(simultaneous solution of system of polynomial equations) does not depend on the original system of the polynomials
<
%& but instead on the Ideal 1 generated by < . This therefore means that the variety
1 and one
makes use of the special generating set (Grbner basis) instead of the actual system < . Since the Ideal is generated by
< , the solution obtained by solving for the affine variety of this Ideal satisfies the original system < of equations. B.
Buchberger (1970) proved that ]1 is void, and thus giving a test as to whether the system of polynomial < can be
solved , if and only if the computed Grbner basis of polynomial Ideal 1 has
as its element. B. Buchberger (1970)
further gives the criterion for deciding if 1 is finite. If the system has been proved to be solvable and finite then F.
Winkler (1996, theorem 8.4.4, p.192) gives a theorem for deciding whether the system has finitely or infinitely many
solutions. The theorem states that if ? is a Grbner basis, then a solvable system of polynomialT equations has finitely
there is a polynomial 4 6? such that
is a pure power
many solutions if and only if for every
U^ _^
#4
of . The process of addition of the remainder after the reduction by the
and thus expanding the
generating set is shown by B. Buchberger (1970), D. Cox et al. (1997 p.88) and J. H. Davenport et al. (1988 p.101) to
terminate.
p>*Q{YL03020 2
`*x
c
x
]!#, d) l+
]%!
{,
!o
DBLFa )'
!
The B. Buchberger algorithm, more or less a generalization of the Gauss elimination procedure, makes use of the
subtraction polynomials known as the
in Definition 28 to eliminate the leading terms of a pair
of polynomials. In so doing and if lexicographic ordering is chosen, the process end up with one of the computed
being a univariate polynomial which can be solved and substituted back in the other
using the Extension Theorem (D. Cox et al. 1998, pp.2526) to obtain the other variables. The Grbner bases approach adds to the treasures of methods that are used to solve nonlinear algebraic systems of equations in Geodesy,
Photogrammetry, Machine Vision, Robotics and Surveying.
mBD%La )'
?B+LFa )'
?B+%La )'
Having defined the term Grbner basis and illustrated how the B. Buchberger algorithm computes the Grbner bases,
we briefly mention here how the Grbner bases can be computed using algebraic softwares of Mathematica and Maple.
In Mathematica Versions 2 or 3, the Grbner basis command is executed by writing In[1]:=GroebnerBasis[{polynomials},
{variables}, {options}] (where In[1]:= is the mathematica prompt) which computes the Grbner basis for the ideal
generated by the polynomials with respect to the monomial order specified by monomial order options with the variables specified as in the executable command giving the reduced Groebner basis. Without specifying the options part,
one gets too many elements of the Grbner basis which may not be relevant. In Maple Version 5 the command is
accessed by typing > with (grobner); (where > is the Maple prompt and the semicolon ends the Maple command).
Once the Grbner basis package has been loaded, the execution command then becomes > gbasis (polynomials, variables, termorder) which computes the Grbner basis for the ideal generated by the polynomials with respect to the
monomial ordering specified by termorder and variables in the executable command. Following suggestions from B.
Buchberger (1999), we Mathematica software is adopted in the present study.
2322
Whereas the resultant of two polynomials is well known and algorithms for computing it are well incorporated into
computer algebra packages such as Maple, the Multipolynomial resultant, i.e. the resultant of more than two polynomials still remain an active area of research. In Geodesy, the use of the two polynomial resultant also known as
20
the Sylvester resultant is exemplified in the work of P. Lohse (1994, pp.7276). The present study therefore extends
on the use of Sylvester resultants to resultants of more than two polynomials of multiple variables (Multipolynomial
resultant) and illustrates in Chapter 3 how the tool can be exploited in Geodesy to solve nonlinear system of equations.
The necessity of Multipolynomial resultant method in Geodesy is due to the fact that many geodetic problems involve
the solution of more than two polynomials of multiple variables. This is true since we are living in a threedimensional
world. We shall therefore understand the term multipolynomial resultants to mean resultants of more than two polynomials. We treat it as a tool besides the Grbner bases and perhaps more powerful to eliminate variables in solution of
polynomial systems. Publications on the subject can be found in the works of G. Salmon (1876), F. Macaulay (1902,
1916), A. L. Dixon (1908), C. Bajaj et al. (1988), J. F. Canny (1988), J. F. Canny et al. (1989), I. M. Gelfand et al.
(1990, 1994), D. Manocha (1992, 1993, 1994a,b,c), D. Manocha and J.F. Canny (1991, 1992, 1993), G. Lyubeznik
(1995), S. Krishna and D. Manocha (1995), J. Guckenheimer et al.(1997), B. Sturmfels (1994, 1998) and E. Cattani
et al. (1998). Text books on the subject have been written by I. Gelfand et al. (1994) and, more recently, by D. Cox et
al. (1998, pp.71122) who provides interesting material.
In order to understand the Multipolynomial resultants technique, we first present the simple case; the resultant of two
polynomial also known as the Sylvester resultant.
Resultant of two polynomials
Definition 210 (Homogeneous polynomial): If monomials of a polynomial
same total degree, the polynomial is said to be homogeneous.
{2]#a^b%#]%a^#]%b%#a/b;
*i]
ra
b
r]%ar]%b+ra/b
=oa' ]
To set the ball rolling, we examine next the resultant of two univariate polynomials `
of positive degree as
*z W ] ! 0302030lO!#; W *i
@ ;9)&e
(253)
`*z W c
] bz0303020d b 9 W *z
@ ;"eed
?kDF)1Z determinant
the resultant of and ` , denoted Res @
`_( is the F)1Z
W cY
0 0 0 !
_W Y
0 0 0 !
W Y
0 0 0 !
W Y
0 0 0 O!
W Y
0 0 0 O!
~L}C `_&* W Y 0 0 0 W Y
0 0 0 O !
(254)
W
Y 0 0 b0
W
Y 0 0 b0
W
Y
0 0 0b b
W Y
0 0 0 b
W Y
0 0 0 b
where the coefficients of the first polynomial of (253) occupies rows while those of the second polynomial `
occupies ) rows. The empty spaces are occupied by zeros as shown above such that a square matrix is obtained. This
resultant is also known as the Sylvester resultant and has the following properties (B. Sturmfels 1998, D. Cox et al.
1998, 3.5)
Sylvester resultants can be used to solve two polynomial equations as shown in the example below
21
>@*]%aBm,*z
=>@*i]
Sa
Bh*90id
(255)
In order to eliminate one variable, we use the hide variable technique i.e. we consider one variable say
(of degree zero). We then have the Sylvester resultant from (254) as
as a constant
a B , \
(256)
which can be readily solved for the variable and substituted back in any of the equations in (255) to get the values
of the other variable . For two polynomials, the construction of resultant is relatively simpler and algorithms for the
execution are incorporated in computer algebra algorithms. For the resultant of more than 2 polynomials of multiple
variables, we turn to the Multipolynomial resultants.
Multipolynomial Resultants
In defining the term multipolynomial resultant, D. Manocha (1994c) writes:
Elimination theory, a branch of classical algebraic geometry, deals with conditions for common solutions of a system
of polynomial equations. Its main result is the construction of a single resultant polynomial of homogeneous
polynomial equations in unknowns, such that the vanishing of the resultant is a necessary and sufficient condition
for the given system to have a nontrivial solution. We refer to this resultant as the multipolynomial resultant and use
it in the algorithm presented in the paper.
We present here two approaches for the formation of the design matrix whose determinant we need; first the approach
based on F. Macaulay (1902) formulation and then a more modern approach based on B. Sturmfels (1998) formulation.
Approach based on F. Macaulay (1902) formulation: With polynomials, the construction of the matrix whose
entries are the coefficients of the polynomials
can be done in five steps as illustrated in the following
approach of F. Macaulay (1902) :
OY1030203
Y*9020303 *t
]^YC030302#]
*,
,
!Bm,N0
(257)
Step 2: Once the critical degree has been established, the given monomials of the polynomial equations are multiplied with each other to generate a set whose elements consists of monomials whose total degree equals the
critical degree. Thus if we are given the polynomial equations
, then each monomial of
is multiplied by those of
, those of are multiplied by those of
until those of
are
multiplied by those of . The set of monomials generated in this form is
030203$
Y *;1030302$ *
[ 030203
Oj*Q{2]kj * Y l
0_0O0S 
] i
* ]mlY 30 0_0] ln
Y
(258)
22
*
Yj *
0
j 0
0
0
0
0
j * 2{ ] l o
2{ ] l
o j L +Y(K Y
{] l o j _
K
c Y Y
0
0
0
j L K c ! !%^)+*,O030203#Bm,_O0
The resulting sets of ! j are disjoint and every element of j is contained in exactly one of them.
Step 4: From the resulting subsets
defined as follows
!j
2
j
<
(259)
! * ] j! j o !
!
variables are
(260)
! ! Y
T
l
B
,
l
B
,
is of the order
k
and is such that for a given polynomial <! in (260), the row is
made up of the symbolic coefficients of each polynomial. The square matrix s has a special property that the non
trivial solution of the homogeneous equations <! which also form the solution of the original equations _! are in its
null space. This implies that the matrix must be singular or its determinant, 'sx , must be zero. For the determinant
to vanish therefore, the original equations L! and their homogenized counterparts <! must have the same non trivial
from which a square matrix is now formed with the row elements being the coefficients of the monomials of the
q>p pp
polynomials <
and the columns correspond to the monomials of the set j . The formed square matrix
solutions.
Step 5: After computing the determinant of the square matrix above, F. Macaulay (1902) suggests the computation
of extraneous factor in order to obtain the resultant. D. Cox et al. (1998, Proposition 4.6, p.99) explains the ex%< r
traneous factors to be integer polynomials in the coefficients of < r
, where < r <
and is related to the determinant via
W020#03 Y
! * ! ];Wc1030203#] Y_c
)Uc *z~RLc< Y C030302< (0 y]
(261)
with the determinant computed as in step 4, ~Lc< Y 020303 < being the Multipolynomial resultant and y] the
extraneous factor. This expression was established as early as 1902 by F. Macaulay (1902) and this procedure
of resultant formulation named after him. F. Macaulay (1902) determines the extraneous factor from the submatrix of the
square matrix and calls it a factor of minor obtained by deleting rows and columns of
the
matrix . A monomial l of total degree is said to be reduced if j o divides l for exactly one
. The extraneous factor is obtained by computing the determinant of the submatrix of the coefficient matrix
obtained by deleting rows and columns corresponding to reduced monomials l
kr
]!
] 0
From the relationship of step 5, it suffices for our purpose to solve for the unknown variable hidden in the coefficients
of the polynomials by obtaining the determinant of the
square matrix and equating it to zero neglecting
the extraneous factor. This is because the extraneous factor is an integer polynomial and as such not related to the
variable in the determinant of . The existence of the nontrivial solution provides the necessary and sufficient
conditions for the vanishing of the determinant. The procedure becomes clear when we consider the example of
the threedimensional resection problem in Chapter 3. It should be pointed out that there exists several procedures
for computing the resultants as exemplified in the works of D. Manocha (1992, 1993, 1994a,b,c) who solves the
Multipolynomial resultants using the eigenvalueeigenvector approach, J. F. Canny (1988) who solves the resultant
using the characteristic polynomial approach and B. Sturmfels (1994, 1998) who proposes a more compact approach
for solving the resultants of a ternary quadric using the Jacobian determinant approach which we present below.
Approach based on B. Sturmfels (1998, p.26) formulation: Given three homogeneous equations of degree two as
follows
<
<
<
Y >@*i
[ >@>@*i
*i
Y Y ]
[YY ]]
Y
a
$[
aa
#Y [ b
[$[[ bb
TY \ ]%ad
[\\ ]%]%aad
d
Y 2]%b d
Y 3a/b *
2]%b d
3a/b *
[ 2]%b d
[ 3a/b *
(262)
23
Y
a
b
]
t < t < t <
* t ]
t a
t b
(263)
t <[ t <[ t <[
t
] ta tb
s
which is a cubic polynomial in the coefficients {2]/a^;b9 . Since the determinant polynomial in (263) is a cubic
polynomial, its partial derivatives will be quadratic polynomials in variables {2]Ca^b; and can be written in the form
<
<
<
t s
Y
a
d
YT[ b
l
YT\ ];al Y 3]%b l
Y Na/b *
] >@* YY ]
l
s
\ ];al
3]%b l
Na/b *
a >@*
Y ]
l
$
a
d
[ b
l
t
t
t
(264)
t s
b >@*N[Y(]
l([
a
dN[[2b
l([\3];al([ ]%b l([ a/b * 90
The coefficients ( ! in (264) are quadratic polynomials in ! of equation (262). The final step in computing the
b
b
resultant of the initial system (262) involves the computation of the determinant of a :vk: matrix given by
Y$Y Y
YT[ YT\ Y Y
Y
$
[
\
(265)
~RL
$
] < Y <
< [ }* 3Y$[(YY 2Y[
3Y#[[[ 2Y[\\ 3Y[ 3Y[ 0
Y
[
\
([(Y N[
([$[ N[#\ ([ [
The resultant (265) vanishes if and only if (262) have a common solution {]C/a^;b;O where {2]9a^;b9 are complex
t
numbers or real numbers not all equal zero. In Chapter 3, we use the procedure to solve the Grunert equation and the
GPS pseudorange equations.
0
j >*=41F] Y 030203] j
which is expressed in matrix form as
Y C030302$ j o ] Y 1030203] j
{a Y 020302#a 
#a Y 020303a }*i
#a Y 020303a }*i
>@*Yv}w?n&*
{2] Y 020303] j 
(266)
(267)
24
{2]^YL030203] j 
n
{]^YC030302#] j 
"y {  *
yv{n&R*
r{ *8w
r{2n}*w
{2acY030203#a 
{2aY1030203a 
r{ R* Y w= `
Y
with z y z being the partial derivatives of (267) with respect to w ,n respectively at the Taylor points xAy9 x . The
approximate values of unknown parameters {]^Y_1030302#] j Po w appearing in the Jacobi matrices z y z are obtained
from Grbner bases or Multipolynomial resultants solution of the nonlinear system of equations (266).
Y
Y
Given zZ!*ez y z from the ) combination and z
z y }~zZ } from the combinatorials, the correlation
*
b
o
o
between the ) and combination is given by
w !b
* z b w } o z !
(269)
wvY(w
w[O1030302w
i (where is the
The submatrices variancecovariance matrix for the individual combinatorials
number of combinations ) obtained via (268) and the correlations between combinatorials obtained from (269) form
the variancecovariance/dispersion matrix
w Y w Y
0
w
Y w
0
0
w [
wp*
0
0
w 3Y 0 0
0 0 w Y
0 0 w
0
0
w
(270)
for the entire combinations. The obtained dispersion matrix is then used in the linear GaussMarkov model (24) to
obtain the estimates of the unknown parameters with the combinatorial solution points in a polyhedron considered
as pseudoobservations in the vector of observations while the design matrix comprises of integer values 1 being
the coefficients of the unknowns as in (273). In order to understand the adjustment process, we consider the following
example.
Example 210: Consider that one has four observations in three unknowns in a nonlinear problem. Let the observations be given by
leading to four combinations giving the solutions and the a
,
,
and
. If the solutions are placed in a vector
) the adjustment model is then defined as
'
{2aY#a #a[#a_\
cFacYL#a
#a[
F a
#a [ #a \ a Y a
[ a \ a Y a
a \
#
"*
(271)
yv{^R*i Y
u [ q [ u Y $r{a^ c)UcVN% cc)OV3;%4 )+0
Let
(272)
q * mZ >cV m>@* o Y
u Y
unbiased holds. We then have from (270), (271) and (272) the result
q *` [ u Y
w 1Y
u [2# [ u Y
w Y
*zO 4{ Lr{2q R* +Rw * U) yv
{ ^q 
(273)
25
"For
Y Y Y o
F
$
Xo
*Q Y B
z' Y BP
*Q
B
z'
B P
(274)
OY > *`FxYB
1Y?BD=
[
B Y
* 0
> *`F
B
BD=
[
B
*
"
(275)
Y > *.9F Y B Y B.9 F Y B d.; Y BD= Y B
B .9' Y BD B. Y Y *z
(276)
> *.9F
B
B.9 F
B d.;
BD=
B
B.9'
D
B B.
*z
which on arranging the differential vector of the unknown terms {2$vv*{2] Y ] xo5w on the left hand side
and that of the known terms {2 Y $ Y # $ Y *f{a Y #a #a [ #a \ #aO_#aOon on the right hand side leads
to
CY
xY
"

z y
* z Y
(277)
z y
tY
* t
"
t
t
t
with
Y
*
t Y
t
CY
X*
z
t
t
"
Y
Y
t
t
Y
1Y
t
t
t
t
(278)
(279)
.
B.9F
B B.9'
BDE
If we consider that
{wR*w y *
g
g
r{2n&R*w * gg
g
g
and
g
g
"
g
g
(280)
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
(281)
we obtain with (277), (278) and (279) the dispersion (268) of the unknown variables
6w .
The unknown values of
6w appearing in the Jacobi matrices (278) and (279) are obtained
from Grbner bases or Multipolynomial resultants solution of the nonlinear system of equations (274).
{vR*Q{2] Y ]
o
26
24
Concluding remarks
The Chapter has presented the closed form algebraic tools of Grbner Bases and the Multipolynomial resultants that
are used in the next Chapters to solve closed form geodetic problems. Using these algebraic closed form tools, the
GaussJacobi combinatorial algorithm is presented as an alternative to estimate the fixed parameters in the nonlinear
GaussMarkov model. In Chapter 3, we consider the solution of selected geodetic problems using the algebraic tools of
Grbner Bases and the Multipolynomial resultants while in Chapter 4, we use the GaussJacobi combinatorial algorithm to estimate the fixed parameters in the nonlinear GaussMarkov model in the overdetermined threedimensional
resection case.
Chapter 3
31
In this section we highlight the main positioning systems; the Global Positioning System GPS and the Local Positioning
System LPS and in particular, the reference frames upon which they operate. An exposition on their relationship is
given and the term threedimensional orientation problem defined.
{ $
of
The results of the threedimensional positioning by GPS are the threedimensional geodetic coordinates R
a point. When positioning with GPS, the outcome is the geocentric position for an individual receiver or the relative
positions between coobserving receivers. The mode of operation and techniques are welldocumented in GPS related
publications and books (e.g. B. HofmanWellenhof et al. (1994), A. Leick (1995), V. S. Schwarze (1995), G. Strang
and K. Borre (1997), A. Mathes (1998), R. Dach (2000) and M. S. Grewal et al. (2001) among others).
Y #
[
q
The Global Reference Frame
upon which the GPS observations are based is defined by the base vectors
with the origin being the center of mass. The fundamental vector is defined by the base vector q and coincides with
the mean axis of rotation of the Earth and points to the direction of the CIO. is oriented such that the plane
completes the right handed sysformed by and q points to the direction of the Greenwich in England.
tem by being perpendicular to and . The Geocentric Cartesian coordinates of a positional vector is given by
Y
R[
Y
[
Y
R[
h *iY
S[
where { } are the components of the vector h in the system Y # # [q
(31)
.
E. W. Grafarend (1991) defines the Local Level System as a threedimensional reference frame at the hand of an
experimenter in an engineering network. When one is positioning using an electronic theodolite or a total station, one
first centers the instrument. When the instrument is properly centered and ready for operation, the vertical axis of the
instrument at this moment coincides with the direction of the local gravity vector at that particular point, hence the term
direction of the local gravity vector, and points in the direction opposite to that of the gravity vector at the theodolite
27
28
6!
station (i.e. to the zenith). The system can now be used to measure observations of the type horizontal directions
, vertical directions
and the spatial distances with the triplet
being measured in the Local Level
Reference Frame. These systems as opposed to GPS are only used within the local networks and are referred to as
the Local Positioning Systems (LPS). In Section (3122) below, we consider the choice of the local datum for such
systems in a threedimensional network.
7 !
{ ! #6 ! $7 ! 
(a)
5
5
whose coordinates are
h * *
Y
[
Y
(32)
defined by base vectors , , q of type south, east, vertical. points to the direction opposite to
points south, while
completes the system by pointing
that of the local gravity vector at point .
east. The datum spherical coordinates of the direction point in the Local Level Reference Frame
are
(b)
!
kB F
! kB F
5
VN_~!V3_27R!
(33)
P5 _ *
! 2)UU!_VN_7R!
R5
3)U7R!
with azimuths ! , vertical directions 7 ! , and spatial distances ! .
Local Level Reference Frame of type 5
Defined by the base vectors Y , , Rq[ , with Y within the local horizontal plane spanned by the
base vectors Y and directed from to ! in vacuo. The angle between the base vectors Y and
Y * Y  #(H
*BZ Y H DS

(34)
[ * q[
or

(
B6#H

Y #
[q ) *' Y
[ ) H
(35)
thus the Local Level Reference Frame of type 5 is related to the Local Level Reference Frame of type
5 by
' Y _
* ' Y L
#[ )~g[ ?(0
(36)
[)
The datum spherical coordinates of point ! in the Local Level Reference Frame 5 are given as
/6 ! 97 !
5
(37)
! F 5 J
* ! #HZ61! 97 !
R5
HX7R!
'
where
6!
and
7 !
29
5
system is given by
*i Y ]PS
a S [q b
(38)
]Ca^b ) are the components of the vector in the system {2 Y #
# [ &0 More insight on the topic can be found
in B. Richter (1986, p.28) and E. Grafarend and B. Richter (1977).
triplets
are its spherical coordinates, in particular q its direction parameters. The threedimensional orientation problem therefore solves the problem of determining (i) the Q rotation matrix and (ii) the
triplet _ _ q_ of orientation parameters from GPS/LPS measurements. As soon as the astronomical longitude
_ and astronomical latitude _ are determined  no astronomical observations are needed anymore  the vertical
deflections with respect to a wellchosen reference frame, e.g. the ellipsoidal normal vector field can be obtained (e.g.
E. Grafarend and J. L. Awange (2000)). The threedimensional orientation problem is formulated by relating the
frame to the
frame as follows
{2
{ 1 ^
{ 1 ^
{
{ *` R
{ 1 1 ^
5
'
Y #
_#[q ) *' Y _#
#[q )E q
(39)
[ _;
BH_
[ ];
(310)
i.e. the threedimensional orientation parameters, the astronomical longitude astronomical latitude and the
"orientation unknown" in the horizontal plane. Interms of Cartesian coordinates ]Ca^b of the station point, the
target points ]%!#aO!Tb! in the Local Level Reference Frame @5 and Cartesian coordinates $}( of the station point,
the target points "!#$%!#+! in the Local Level Reference Frame one writes
]%!1B]
v!B
a!1Ba J * ] 1q _1 _; %!1BD _
(311)
b!^Bb
+!B
]1q_1_;>@*
with
]!1B]
3V _61!_VN_7R!
a ! Ba J *1! 2) 6 ! VN_7 ! >^!o{O,./^030203
b ! BDb
2 )7 !
The question then arises: How can the parameters relating the Local Level Reference Frame
Frame
be obtained?
(312)
5
1.
The conventional approach has been to determine the direction of the local gravity vector at
the origin of the network and the orientation unknown in the horizontal plane by the use of steller
astronomical observations.
2.
E. W. Grafarend, P. Lohse and B. Schaffrin (1989) have proposed an approach based on the solution
of threedimensional resection problem. In the approach, directional measurements are performed to
the neighbouring 3 points in the Global Reference Frame and used to derive the distances by solving the Grunert equations. From these derived distances, a closed form solution of the six unknowns
q
by means of the HamiltonQuaternion procedure is achieved.
{2X

30
3.
J. L. Awange (1999) and E. Grafarend and J. L. Awange (2000) solved the overdetermined form of the
problem by using the simple Procrustes algorithm to determine the threedimensional orientation parameters q and the deflection of the vertical for a point whose geometrical positional quantities
G are known.
{
{3
4.

{2
{
Here the threedimensional orientation problem is understood as the fundamental problem to determine the rotation
matrix as well as its three parameters called {astronomical longitude, astronomical latitude, horizontal orientation
unknown in the horizontal plane} which relates the Local Level Reference Frame to the Global Terrestrial Reference
Frame (e.g. ITRF 97) from GPS position measurements both at target points as well as the station point and LPS
direction measurements (horizontal directions, vertical directions by a theodolite) from the station point to the target
points (at least three). If a reference direction parameterized in terms of surface normal {ellipsoidal longitude ,
ellipsoidal latitude } is subtracted from the local vertical parameterized in terms of {astronomical longitude ,
astronomical latitude }, namely [  H we have access to the vertical deflections.
B 
!+o [
[
!oS
7R!
to [
1!
< a!
6 ! *zJI K$J_H <]%!
5
61!
BH
po [
(313)
<b !
(314)
<]
! l<a !m
! * <]
! l<=a !
l<Pb !
(315)
where <]%!* F]%!}B](`<a!=* Fa!+Ba9(Q<Pb!=*b!}Bmb denote the coordinate difference in the Local Level
Reference Frame 5 and _ is the "unknown orientation" in the horizontal plane after setting the zero reading of
the theodolite in the direction F ! . The relationship between the Local Level Reference Frame 5 and the Global
Reference Frame is then given by
<]!
<="!
<a! * _1 _1$O <!
(316)
<Pb !
<" !
7R!C*zJI K$J_HZ
1 1$O&*
_ _
with
H
_
6 _
_
B H
H
#H
#H
_X _
_
_X _
_
#H
(317)
(_
we now express the observations (313), (314) and (315) in the Global Reference Frame as
32
31
In this section, we consider the application of the techniques discussed in Chapter 2 to solve;
(1)
the threedimension resection problem
(2)
the minimum distance mapping problem
(3)
the fourpoint GPS pseudoranging equations.
6!
+YL$
[
7 !
5
!
a
(a)
1! ) l* , $.9 ) *
1!)v* , ./
o [
!=om [
!
) D*,O$.9 ) * O0
+! r) * ,./$ ) *
7R!
P0 5
c
Z
)
S
o
c
{
,
/
.
9

!
!
!
! o [ )=o{O,O$.9/c ! #6 ! $7 ! 1)PoA{O,./$/
P
61!
32
fo [
horizontal and vertical directions respectively linking the old and new GPS points, while
are the
required GPS coordinates of the unknown point
(Figure 3.1). is the rotation matrix containing
the threedimensional orientation parameters (see (311) in Section (313)). Multiplying (322) by ( 324)
leading to (325) derive the relationship between the spherical coordinates of type horizontal directions ,
vertical directions and the space angles . After manipulations of (326),(327) and (328), the spatial
b
angle
can be written in terms of the spherical coordinates
of points and
with
b
b
b
b
respect to a theodolite orthogonal Euclidean frame
as in equation (329). The Grunert equations for the
three unknown distances can now be written in terms of the known distances
and
the space angles
illustrated in (Figure 3.1) as in (331). In photogrammetry, the relationship
between the space angles and the measured image coordinates with respect to orthogonal Euclidean frame
centred at the perspective centre is given by E. Grafarend and J. Shan (1997a, equation (1.1), p.218) as
+!
7R!
6!
5
Y [
Y
[ [ Y
c
!b *
{361!T7R!#&N{26 7 
!
Y
[ [(Y
] !] b
a!'a b d
]
! Sa !
d
] b
a b
l
(320)
]%!B]
"!1B
a!^BDb Ja * !1BD _
b ! BDb
! B
/61! 97 !
v!B
1! #HZ61! 97 !
* %!1BD
HX7R!
&!1B
u
[
[
o Wv'O>@*{h
o
Lh=h * [ h`*A,_
#B.m ' /6 b 97 b H6 b 97 b HZ7 b ) b
V3_361!'VN_7 !
TB.O' VN_26 b VN_7 b $2)U16 b V3_27 b $2)U7 b ) 1!! b 2)U161!FVN_7 ! *
2)U7 !
! B
TB.V ' b B( b BDN2U b B ) ! B
! BS
(321)
(322)
(323)
(324)
(325)
33
b
B 3F ! B+*i b ! B b B !
! B b 3F ! B b &*z !
B.L ! b b
F"!B3F"!^B&*i !
B.L"!S
F ! B b
BF ! B
Bm b B
*`B.9 b BN ! B
VN_261!VN_7R!
)
3)U161!FVN_7R! *
#
B
.
'
N
V
_
6
N
V
_
7
2
)
1
6
N
V
_
7
$
2
U
)
7
1
]
!
b
b
b
b
b
b
2)7R!
F"!1B b
!BD b
&!1B b
B
BF ! B
Bm' ! B=
B ! B
B
B b B
B b B
B b BS
b
=
B"!1B
B!1BDb
BmU+!1BSb
B (328)
B b B
Bm' b BD
BmU b B
c ! * 97 ! ;7
36
B6 ! C\
#HX7 ! #HX7 b
b
b
b
"
B. / ! b ! b
* !
5
B !
5
B
!
*b !
Y
b
B. 1!b b c+! b b
Y
* Y
\
BD. CY
&Y
[
*
\
[
BD
. [ [
*
[
\
[(
Y
Y
BD.
[ aY
[(Y
(326)
(327)
(329)
(330)
(331)
CYL
1[
Several procedures have been put forward to solve the Grunert equations for the unknown distances in
(331) above. These include J. A. Grunert (1841), S. Finsterwalder and W. Scheufele (1937), E. L. Merritt (1949), M.
A. Fischler and R. C. Bolles (1981), S. Linnainmaa et al. (1988), E. Grafarend et al. (1989), P. Lohse (1990) and E.
Grafarend and J. Shan (1997a, 1997b). F. J. Mller (1925) and R. M. Haralick et al. (1991, 1994) present an extensive
review of these procedures. The present study considers the use of algebraic computational tools (Grbner bases
and Multipolynomial resultants) discussed in Chapter 2 to solve the Grunert equations for the unknown distances
in (331).
Y
[
In order to understand the usefullness of Grbner basis in the solution of the threedimensional resection problem,
we present first the hand computation of the Grunert distances for a regular tetrahedron using Grbner basis before
considering the general case of the Grunert equations for distances in the general threedimensional resection problem
whose Grbner basis is computed using Mathematica software.
(i)
We begin by expressing the Grunert distances equations (331) whose geometrical behaviour has been studied by E.
Grafarend, P. Lohse and B. Schaffrin (1989) in the form
cW z
* ]
Y S
]
BD./Y
]1Y]
( W *]
]
[
B .
[(]
]%[
VNW *i]
[
]
Y
B ._VN[(Y][3]1Y
(332)
where
]
BD. Y
] Y ]
S]
D
B W *z
]%
Y D
B
.O
[ ]
] [ S]%
[ BD W *
]
Y BD.VN[(Y$]^YN]%[S]
[ BV(W *i
(333)
E. Grafarend, P. Lohse and B. Schaffrin (1989) demonstrate that for each of the quadratic equation in (332), there
exists an elliptical cylinder in the planes
and
for the first, second and third equations
{2]^YL#]
& C{2]
#][_
{2][_]^YL
34
{3]
o 
{]%[o 
] ! )+*Q,O$./$
]^Y*Q] *Q]%[
Y
*
[ * [
Y
{2]1YRo B &
respectively . These cylinders are constrained to their first quadrant since the distances are positive thus
B
B
and
. In Box (32) below, we apply the Grbner basis technique to solve for the distances
between the unknown station
and the known stations
. For a regular tetrahedron, the
distances
joining the unknown point
to the known points
are equal to the distances
between the known stations. Let us consider these distances to be equal to U . The spatial
angles are also equal (i.e.
{2] Y #]
#] [ o
or [
! or [ [
! o
o [
Y
*
[ * ([ Y *t:
] Y *z]
i
* ][ A
* 0
Box 32 (Hand computation of Grbner basis of the Grunert equations for a regular tetrahedron):
]1Ye`]
ep]%[ and subtracting the left hand side of (332) from the right hand
Y >@*z]
Y B._9Y ]^Y(] S]
BcW *z
>@*z]
B.
[(
]
][
]
[
BW *z
(334)
[ >@*z]
Y B._V [(Y ] Y ] [ d]
[ BDV W *
as polynomials in ' ] Y #] ] [ ) . These equations form (following Definition A6 in Appendix A.1) the Ideal 1
as
1
* ' Y $
$ [ 2{' ] Y #]
] [ )
(335)
]
Y B] Y ]
]
B *z
]
B]
] [ ]
[ B *z
(336)
]
Y B] Y ] [ ]
[ B *z
* ]
Y B] Y ]
S
]
B ]
B ]
] [ ]
[ B # ]
Y B] Y ] [ S]
[ B 
]1YL]
#]%[ )
1
2
'
whose generators ?
are written as
(337)
B ]^YN]
S]
Y
(338)
Y B]^YN]%[S]
[ B
B]
] [ S]
[ B 0
Desired now are the Grbner basis for the for the generators (338) of the Ideal 1 in (335). We then proceed
to compute the pair polynomials I4 Y >4 N2#4 Y 4 [ (I 4 > 4 [ from the generators (338) of (335). From B.
(339)
Z#4 Y 4 &*`BZ] Y ]
S] Y ] [ S]
B]
[
which is reduced with respect to ? by subtracting 4 [ to obtain
BZ] Y ]
S] Y ] [ BD._]
[ S]
] [
(340)
which does not reduce to zero and is added in the original list ? of the generating set of the Ideal 1 as 4 \ .
The BLFa ) pairs to Tbe consideredT next are ZI 4 4 [ N Z# 4 > 4 \ ( ZI 4 [ > 4 \ from the new generating
( ZI 4 4 [ U
F\G ). The pair polynomials remaining for consideration are
I 4
4 \ and I 4 [ > 4 \ . Z# 4
> 4 \
gives
BD._] Y ]
[ S] ]
B]
(341)
ZI 4 > 4 \ *]
Y ] [ ] Y
] Y B] Y ]
[ S]
]
[ B]
B] [[ S] [
(342)
cY?*i]
4
*i]
4 [ *i]
4
35
Box 32 (Hand computation of Grbner basis of the Grunert equations continued):
which does not reduce to zero and is added to the list ? of the generating set of the Ideal 1 as
sets to be considered next is I4 >4
from the new generating set
4 . The
. #4 4
gives
?
V4 4 >4 >4
zBl%Lac )
Z [ \
Q*Q{
[ \ _ Z [ \
Z# 4[_>4_\&*QBZ]1Y]
[ ]1Y d._] ]
[ B]
]%[XB]
(343)
to give
(344)
which is a univariate polynomial and completes the set of the reduced Grbner basis of the set ?
summarised as follows
4
*z]
Y B] Y ] [ S]
[ B
4 [ *z]
B] ] [ S]
[ B
S] Y ] [ B.L]
[ ] ] [
4 \ *`BZ] Y ]
?f>@*
4*z] Y B
] Y ]
[ S]
]
[ B]
B] [[ S] [
[
4*.L] [ B.L] [
(345)
[[ B._] [ is a univariate
*
L
.
]
. We then proceed to derive the solution to the
polynomial in ] [ and readily gives the values of ] [ *Z
B , the value of [ *U . This is substituted back
Grunert distance equations (334) as follows: Since [ *i] [ o
and 4 *i]
Y Bx] Y ] [ ]
[ B to give ] *^Z a and ] Y
* Z( a respectively.
in 4 [ *i]
B] ] [ r]
[ B
as we had
This complets the solution of Grunert equations (334) for the unknown distances ] Y *A] *A] [ *Q
initially assumed.
From the computed reduced Grbner basis in (345) we note that the element 4
(ii)
Grbner basis solution of the Grunert equations for the general threedimension resection problem
We next present the application of Grbner basis technique to the solution of the Grunert equations (331) expressed
as follows:
c4 Y>@*i]
4
>@*i]
4R
[ >@*i]
]
l
._9Y
]^YN]
ScW
*
Y S
.
[N]
][lW *i
S]
[
l
._VN[(Y][3]1Y&dV(W *z;
[ S]
Y l
(346)
where
* ] Y o B *z] o
Y z
B. / Y
* Y
3B.
/
B Y
*z W 2B
[ * W 3B
B [ *] [ o B
[ 2B. / [(Y
* V [Y
[(
[ Y *z
*iV
W 0
(347)
1* ]
Y
]
l._9Y
]^YN]
dcW]
S]
[ l.
[3]
]%[lW]
[ S]
Y d.VN[Y(]%[3]^Y&dV(We
(348)
whose Grbner basis are computed in Mathematica 3.0 after Lexicographic ordering ]^YRem] ed]%[ by the command
GroebnerBasis as
?LL(2L72)T
'@{ 4cY 4
> 4[_ON{]^YL#]
#][_ ) 0
(349)
1
The execution of the Mathematica 3.0 command above gives the computed Grbner basis of the Ideal (348) as
expressed in Boxes (33a) and (33b) below.
36
Box 33a (Computed Grbner basis for the Grunert distance equationsunivariate term):
Y f
* T,:B3
Y
\Y
Bc
[ .[
Y
\ [ \
[ BO Y
[ V [Y ._ [Y
[ V [(Y ._ Y
[
[ V [(Y BOV
[(Y ._
Y
V
[(Y
.
[ V
[Y d
Y
[ V
[(Y l._ Y
[ V [(Y SV [Y ][
cW2
Y
\ c.WBd,:
Y
W}S. \Y
(W&i,2:O\ OW
[ BD._cW2
Y
[ BhcW2 [
[ d.
Y
(W
[ B.OW \
[
+(  32a W+H
O.V([ WBr,2:O
Y
V(W1._ Y
V([ WBr,2:c
[ V(W^Ec[
Y
[ V(W.
[ VNW^EOcW39Y
[
[NVN;,cW2 Y
[3VN[([ Y^Br,.9Y
(W
[3VN[(Y;
Y
W
[ V [(Y B W Y
[ V [Y S Y
W
[ V [(Y Bl,._ Y
[ V W V [(Y SO Y
[ V W V [(Y O Y
[ V W V [Y z,2:O \ W V
[Y B
._ W
Y
V
[(Y Bi,2:O W V
[(Y Y
c
Y
W V
[(Y H
B O W
[ V
[(Y . W
Y
[
[ V
[(Y .O W
[ [ V
[(Y m
Y
W [
[ [ V
[(Y m W
[ V
[([ Y B
V W V
[(Y ._
Y V W V
[(Y .
[ V W V
[(Y "
Y
[ V W V
[(Y B W Y [ V [Y "O Y W [ V [Y W Y [ V [(Y " Y [ V W V [Y B
._ W V \[Y l. W
V \[(Y S W
[ V \[(Y ] [
\
+( 24a W
B._ W
Y B OOWW}m,.OW2
Y (W&SR. c W
BS,
Y W
D Y W
BS,2O W
[ W
Y
[ m,._cW2W
[ B
%.
Y WV(W
\
\
. W
[ `
Y
W
[ f W
[ {
B cW3VNW,._cW3 \
Y
V(WP
O(W3V(WB
O Y W2V(Wv`._OcW
[ V(WB
OcW2
Y
[ VNWXBl,.W
[ V(Wl._
Y W
[ V(WXB._cW [ V(W?d%
. OV W
Bm,2O
Y
V W
S \Y
V [ W
Bm,2c
[ V W
d
Y
[
[ V W
\ [ V W
B
._ W
9Y [3V3[Y&
H
[
OcW39Y W [3VN[(Y&dOW Y W [3V3[YB._9Y W
[2VN[(Y+[ S Y
W
[2VN[(Y+S W
9Y
[
[ V3[Y&
W Y
[ W [
[ V [(Y
E
O W Y
[ V W V [(
Y [
W [Y
[ V W V [(
Y [B._
Y
W
[ V W
V [Y
E
O Y W [ V W V [(Y B._ W Y [ V W V [(Y
Y
W
[ V W V [(Y B. Y
[ V W
V [Y R Y
[ V W
V [Y R Y
[ V W
V [Y B,2O W
V
[Y R W
Y
V
[(Y
. W W V
[(Y XB O
W
Y
W V
[(Y B
,2c W
V
[(Y SO
Y W
V
[(Y SO W
[ V
[(Y O
B c W W
[ V
[Y S W
Y W
[ V
[(Y S W
[ V
[(Y ,. W V W V
[Y Bm,.O W V W V
[Y
._
Y
W V W V
[(Y UB [
c W
[ V W V
[(Y P[
W
Y
[ V W V
[(Y P
[
Y
W
[ V W V
[(Y B=
.[V W
V
[(Y P \
Y
V W
V
[(Y v
[\ V W
V
[(Y P\ W
Y \
[ V [[(Y B
._ W Y
W
[ V [(Y d Y
W
[ V [(Y d W Y
[ V W V [Y S Y
W
[ V W V [Y d W
V [(Y B._ W W V [(Y d W
V [(Y T] [
PTB O W[ R. c W
W B._ W
Y
W BR. O W W
U c W
Y
W
c W[ B.
Y \
W[ =. W[
[ (B c W
W
[ ._ W W
[ =%. O W
V W B
._ W
Y
V W B W W V W v,2: W
Y
W V W R. W
V W BV, c
Y
W
V W ._ Y
W
V W B : \ W
[ V W W
Y
[ V W . O W W
[ V W B
. W
[ V W r
Y [
W
[ V W [ BR. O W V W
[ 3
c W
Y
V [ W
R.[ c W V W
BV, c
Y
W V W
._ Y
W V W
r:O W
[ V W
B._ W
Y [
[ V W
B
c W
[ V W
OV W B._
Y V W B.
[ V W =
Y
[ V W W Y [ V [(Y B W
Y W [ V [Y B W Y W
[ V [(Y Y W [ V [Y B
W
Y
[ V W V [(Y :O [ W
Y
W
[ V W V [(Y
W
[Y [
W
[ V W
V[ [
Y MB _ Y
W
[ V W V
[(Y [Y
W
[ V W V
[Y Bv W Y
[ V
W
V [Y B
_9Y W [2V W
V3[YL= Y W [3V W
VN[(YL9Y [3V W VN[(YL=. W V
[Y B: W
(W2V
[(Y W
Y (W2V
[(Y :OcW2 W
V
[Y B._cW3
Y W
V
[Y B
. W[ V
[(Y S
Y
W[ V
[(Y O
B
c W
V(W2V
[Y \
c
W
W2V(WV
[(Y O
B W
V(WV
[(Y d.cW3V W
V
[Y B.
(W2V W
V
[Y S
Y
WV W
V
[(Y T]
[
\ B c W[ W :OcW
(W
E
+ (aW E
B c W W[ \W
B O W[ V W ,._W
W V W Br._W
Y
\ W V W B,. W (W
V [ W 7
O W [
Y
NW
V W 7
[ W[ V W \ B
[
._
Y
W V(W^:O W
V W
B,.cW3W2V W
OcW3
Y
WV W
:c W
V W
MB c
Y
W
V W
Y
W
V W
MB cOW2V W
c(W3V W Bx.
Y
WV W V W
Box 33b (Computed Grbner basis for the Grunert distances equationsmultivariate terms):
[
_\
4
[d
.O
[3V(WX
BD
Y
[2V(WXB._9Y
V(W2V3[Y3]
*
[ V(WXBDcW
[ BW
[ dOW9Y
[3VN[(YBD/Y
(W
[3VN[(Y+l._c[ W2V
[(Y
B.O W V
[(Y T] [ '
Y
* W
Y
V [Y d Y
W V [Y
] [ z._ Y
d
[ V [Y [ ] Y ]
[ z'
Y
[ d Y [ V [(Y T]
]
[ '.O
[ d Y
V [(Y ] [
._
cW(WZB
l
l
._cW2V(WZB.(W2V(WZBDV W
T]^Yz'OW9Y
V(WOB
9Y WV(WZBD/W Y V
WT]
[YBD9Y
W
[2V(WXBD W
VN[(YBD W
VN[(Y2
cW
V(W2VN[(YBW2VN
W2VNW [(YNT
]%['.#OcWOWW2V3O
B
B OVNWd
[ VNWT]^YN]
[
* 'cW29Y B9Y WZBD9Y V(WXB [3V(WVN[(WZYNB] cW]
[
[h
Y [
V W dO
W V [(Y Bc
W V [(Y BD
W
V [(Y
BDV W V T[BXY 9] Y [
W
[B
[
[
#XB
d
[ T] Y ] \[ z#B._ Y
B
[ V [(
Y T]
] \[ TBX Y
[ B._V [(Y T] [
*icWXBWZBDV(Wd/Y
]1Y(]
BDVN[Y(]^YN]%[ZB
[N]
][ZBD._]
[
cWVN[Y?BDWVN[(YBV(WVN[(YNT]^YN]
cW29Y
d/Y
(WXB9Y
V(W
9RY c
W2WV([2W2VNV3[[Y?Y&BD
]%[TB.cWd.OW}d.V(WXBD
Y
VNWScWV
[Y
* B W V
[(
Y ] ] [
[3TVNBXW2VN [(W Y3 T]^[ Y(B
W [ l [ V W d W Y V [(Y d Y V W V [(Y
R W
[ V
[Y
]
[ #BD
Y
B
[
B Y
[ V [Y BDV
[(
Y T]
] [[
37
Box 33b (Computed Grbner basis for the Grunert distances equationsmultivariate terms
continued):
Y W [ V W W [ B W [ B [ V W ] Y ] z#B._ W l. W d W
.
(V WZBD
[ V(WT]^YN]%
['./Y
VNWS
cW [2VN[(Y
BD(W [3VN[(YNT] ]%[L
[
'/Y W [}
d/Y [2V(WXB._cW2
VN[(Y+l.W
VN[Y+dcW
VN[Y3]
4*
[ \
[
[
BD
[ ]^YN] [ z._9Y l [3VN[(YNT] ] [ z'/Y [}m._V3[Y(T] [
' W Y
d Y W BD Y V
W T] Y
TB.
W d.O W d
.
V W BD
V W ]
Y
4
* #BX W
[ BD
W
[ d
[ V W d W Y
V [Y B Y
W V [Y ] [ l
._V [(Y ]
[ Y ]
] [
[ V [Y ] Y ]
[ # BD
Y
B
[ B Y
[ V [Y ]
]
[ B Y
V [(Y ] [
4*`#BXOW(WO=VNW2]1Y9Y V(W3] TBXcW3VN[(Y_PW3V3[Y2][OP [3]^Y(] ]%[cP._]^Y$]
[ 9Y [2VN[Y3] ]
[
VN[YN] [[
BXJ Y V
WNW PTBXJ W W 3W ] Y ]
P#BXJ W %
[ 9
[NW ] Y ] [
TBX W 2[Y W 3[([ Y ]
] [ \ P#BXJ Y
W BXJ Y
NW BXJ W %
[ 3[(Y T]
[ .] Y ]
]
[
4cYW *
'
[ N[Y T]
] [ BXJ Y
] [
4cYYZ*V(WS]
Y dVN[(Y]1Y(][]
[
' ]1Y] #]%[ ) above, We note that the element 4cY in Box (33a) is a
From the computed Grbner basis of the Ideal 1M2
B
univariate polynomial in ]%[O0 With the coefficients of 4cY known, the univariate polynomial is then solved for ][o
0 B The obtained values of ]%[o B and
and the admissible values inserted in 4cYY in Box (33b) to obtain ]1Yo
B
]^Yo
are now inserted in any
the remaining elements of the Grbner basis 4 1030203> 4cYTW in Box (33b) to obtain
0 B ofThe
Multipolynomial resultants solution of the Grunert distance equations for the general threedimension
resection problem
Besides the use of Grbner bases approach as demonstrated above, the Multipolynomial resultants technique can
also be used to solve the Grunert equations for distances. We illustrate the solution of the problem first using the F.
Macaulay (1902) formulation of the coefficient matrix and then the B. Sturmfels (1998) formulation of the coefficient
matrix. We start with the Grunert equations expressed in the form (346) as
~Y >*z]
Y S
]
S
9Y
]1Y]
ScW *
~
>@*]
S]
[
l
[N] ]%[dW *
~ [>@*i]
Y S] [
dVN[(
(Y ]1
Y]%[SV(W *
90
(350)
]\
Clearly equation (350) is not homogeneous. It is therefore homogenized by introducing the fourth variable
and
treating the variable which is to be solved first, say
as a constant (i.e. hiding it by giving it degree zero). The
resulting homogenized polynomial is
]Y
~ $Y Y >*z]
S Y
] Y ]
] \ z' W ]
Y T] \
*
~ Y >@*z]
S]
[ l [ ] ] [ d W ] \
*
~ [Y
>@*z]
[ d
V [(Y ] Y ] [ ]
\ z
]
Y dV W ] \
*
(351)
which we simplify as
~ Y$Y >*i]
d Y ] ] \ S ] \
~
Y >*z]
]
[ d
Y ]
] [ d
] \
~ [Y >@*]
[ dV Y ] [ ] \ SV
] \
(352)
*
* W9VYX*iVN[(YN]^Y%V
*`'V(WS]
Y . We now
formulate the coefficient matrix of (352) by first using the F. Macaulay (1902) approach followed by the B. Sturmfels
(1998) approach.
Approach 1 (F. Macaulay 1902):
38
The first step involves the determination of the total degree of (352) by (257) in page (21) of Chapter 2 giving the
value of . In the second step, one formulates the general set comprising the monomials of degree 4 in three
variables by multiplying the monomials of (352) by each other. These monomials form the elements of the set j
(258) in page (21) as
Oj*
] \
9 ] [
] \ /]
]
[ /] [
] [ 9]
] \
9]
] [ ] \ /]
] [[
]
] \[ 9]
]
[ ] \ 9]
] [ ] \
/]
[ ] \
9] [ ] \[ 9] \\ 9] \[ 9] [[ ] \
(353)
{2\ ] l [ L ! K ! c [ b b b )
{]
9]
];\c/]
]
[ /]
]%[O9[ ]
] \ \
9] [
]%[2];\O
(354)
{]
]
[ ];\c[ 9]
[ ] \
9]
] [ 9] [ [ /] \ [ ];\O
{]
] \ /]
] [ ] \
/] [ ] \ /] \ c0
In the fourth step, we form the polynomials <! using the sets above according to equation (260) in page (22) giving
! \j *
\ *
[\ *
\ *
rise to
\
+Y > * ]
O Y *
\
<
>
* ]
[ [
*
\ \ _[ *
<[>*
] \
<
{]
OY9]
];\LYL9]
[ Y9]
][OY9] \
YL/]%[2];\LY
{]
] \
/] \
9]
] [
9] [
9] [ ] \

(355)
{]
%] \_[_/]
]%[L[9]%[3];\LL[_9] \
L[_O0
S
Bl,
m
B
,
s of dimension
k
(in our case ,xkd, ) whose rows are the coefficients of the L! in (355) above and the columns are the monomials
{V2Y*`] \
, [ V
*`] [
]%\[ , VN[*`] [
[ ];\ , V(\*f]
]
[ , V *`]
]%[2];[ \ , V *`]
] \
\ , V *f]
] [[ , V *Q]
]
[ ];\ , V *`]
]%[2] \
,
V2YW *z]
] \ , V2Y$YX*] [ , V2Y
*i] [ ];\ , VYT[*i]
[ ] \
, V2YT\R*][3] \ and VY *z] \  elements of the sets formed in (354) as
V2Y V
VN[V(\ V V V V VV2YTW V2Y$Y V2Y
VYT[ VY\ V2Y
Y , 9Y
]
[ Y , 9Y
]
] [ Y , Y
] \
Y , Y
] [ ] \ Y , Y
]
] \ Y , Y
s* ] ]
] \
\
, Y , , Y
,
]
[
, Y ,
] [ ] \
, Y ,
] ]%[
, 3Y ,
]
]%[L[
, V2Y V
]%
[3];\LL[
, V2Y V
] \
L[ , V2Y V
]
];\LL[ , V2Y V
The determinant of the matrix s above is a univariate polynomial of degree 8 in the variable ]^Y given in Box (33c)
below:
39
Box 33c (F. Macaulay multipolynomial resultants solution of the Grunert distance equationsunivariate
polynomial):
]O\
[ Hc
[ Y
V [(Y Bl,:RBD.O
[ V
[(Y BD[ .O
[
Y
B
[
Y
V
[(Y BD \Y
BS.
[ Y
V [[(Y B \
[ B.
[ [Y
V [Y B
V [(Y \
Y
HOV
[Y B._
Y
V
[(Y B._ Y
[ V [(Y T]Y
\
\
+(a Y V
[(Y W BS._
Y V
[(Y W BO.V W lO.O W BO._ W Yc W
Y V
[(Y B
Y V [(Y W BS.O
[
Y W B.
Y V
[Y V W B
\
\
\
\
\
[
Y V W =.O
[ W
Y B.
[ V
[(Y V W .
[ W V
[(Y B. [ V W B._ Y V W ._ Y W . W V [Y B._V [(Y W BP,2:c W
Y B
\
[
,:O W V
[[ Y ,2:
Y
V W [ ,2:OV
[Y W i[ V
[(Y[ V W i
Y
W B=[ .O
[ W ,2:c
[ V W ,:O
[ W Bc
[ W BO Y
[ [ V [Y V W
B
O/Y
[ OWVN[(YcBR9Y
[ (W2VN[(YOBR Y
V [Y
[W/B/Y
V [Y
[3V(W/B
Y
[ V
[Y
[ V(W/B.
[ [ W3
Y
V
[(Y BRc
[3 Y
[VN[(Y(V(W9B
[W29Y VN[(Y",. [N9Y V3[YNOWr ,. [(9Y VN[(Y(V(W [2W2 Y VN[YB [3 Y VN[(Y(cWB O [39Y V [(Y cWB
[
Y
V
[(Y
OWl
[2W9
Y
V [
[Y O
B
[ V
[(Y cW
T] Y
\
\
+(3b W
Y V
[Y B,.O
[ W2cWBO
Y
[ V W
Br
[ W
V
[(Y . Y V(WW.WNV [(Y cW cWNV(W+B.Rc W
O(WNOW+B
\
cW3V(WB.RO W
B,.
[ WV(W z.O
[ cW2VNWB\c [ cWV(WBm
[ V W
V
[(Y Bm
Y V
[(Y V W
Bm._O
Y (W2V(WB.ROV W
B
W
Y
V
[Y BD \
[
Y
W
Bd
\ ,.OW3
Y
cWXB
.O\ W2V
[Y cW
i,._V
[(Y cW2
V(W?,.
Y
VNW
cWZB \
[ W
B
\
[ V W
B W
V \[Y
,O W
V
[Y B Y
W
Bi W
V [(Y A._V
[(Y V W
Bi Y
V W
[ p,2O
Y
V W
p[ ,2O W
V
[Y A._
Y[
W
A.
[ W
`,O
[ W
,
Y W
,2O
[ V W
BQ,.W3V
[Y V(WvBz/Y V3[Y2 [ V W
Bz9Y VN[Y2 [ W2V(WvBz/Y [ OWW2V3[YB.
[
Y VNW2cW
.O
[ V
[(Y Y
V W
B
c Y
[
[ W[ V [Y V W BR
[ W
V
[[(Y Y
UO
Y
V W V
[(Y[ W U
c W
Y
[ V
W B[
W
Y
[ B Y
[ V
[[(Y
[ W V W B
Y
V
[(Y
[ [ W V W BA
[ V W V [(Y W Y
B
[ [ V W V
[Y W
Y
f._ Y
V [(Y W
[ V W B Y
V [(Y
[ V W
B Y
V [(Y
[ W
B
[ W
Y
V [Y BS
[ W
Y
V
[(Y W B
[ Y
V [[Y V W W Bh
[ W Y
V [Y W B[c
[ W Y
V [Y V W \ W
Y
V [
[(Y W
.O
[ W
Y
V [(Y z._c
[ [ Y
V [Y V W W Bm Y
[ W
\ V [(Y D
c
[ W V
[(Y W z.O
[ W
V [Y Y
z.O
[ W Y
V [Y W B
.O
[ V
[(Y W V W BD
[ W Y
V [(Y W BDO
[ W
V
[(Y ] Y
[
+(6a
Y V W W
O
Y V W
W :c W
V
[(Y W B.O W V
[(Y V W
W
V
[(Y V W B
[ W V
[(Y B:
Y V W
W B:O W V
[Y W
B. W
Y W
. \ W V
[(Y V W
B,2:c W V W
[ W . W
[ W
B \ W W
[ SV, O W
V W
[ . W[
[ Z
O W[ 7
B W[ 3
B O[ V W[ .O W
[ V W[ B
.O
[ [ W V W
B7 W
[ V W
d,O W
[ V W
B.O
[ [ W
V W ZO W
V
[Y V W Zc W V W W .
Y
W
V W B[ . W V
[(Y [ ._
Y
V W
. W V
[(Y %. c W W
%. c W V W
BR. c W
W B.O W
Y
B%. c W
V W BR. cV W
W B[ R. OV W W
.O
[ V W Bx Y
V W
[ W V [(Y B
[ W
V
[(Y W ".
[ W V
[(Y W
"
[ W
V [Y V W Y
"
[ W V [Y Y
V W
BP
[ W V [[ Y Y
B W
Y
[ V W . W [
Y
[ V W
O [2cW2VN[(Y(9Y V W
B O
Y (W2V(WOW3
B OW3V
[Y OWV(WC [2(W2 W
9Y VN[(YCB
[ V W
Y B
[ V W
V
[(Y cWB [NV W 9Y VN[(YB
[
Y
W
V(WB
[3 W[ 9Y
VN[(Y;3
[2 W
9Y
VN[YNV(WCB":c
[2W29Y
VN[(Y(VNW2cWC
B"9Y
V(
W [
[ O
WW2V3[Y1Bv9Y
V(
W [
[
W
VN[(Y;
[2 W
cW2VN[(Y(9Y
H
O
Y
W
cW]
Y
\ \ \
B
[ W2 W
V(W;"[ .
[ W
V(WO[ WB,. W
[ VNW2cW^B \
[ [ V W
W
i W[ cW^B=:O W
W
aW B=V W B W ,.WNV W
cW9,.OW3V(W W
[
[
[
W2 W B: W
V W
BO W V(W;.O
[ W V(W;
[ W
V W
BcV W cW;.
[ V W cW9MOV W W/MOV(W W BP:V W
W
Bc
[ WV W
cWO0
The univariate polynomial in Box (33c) is then solved by the algebraic algorithm such as roots command in MATLAB
to obtain the roots. Once these roots have been obtained, the admissible solution is substituted in the third equation of
B
B
(350) in page (37) to obtain h value of
The obtained value of
is in turn substituted in the second
B
equation of (350) to obtain the last variable
The correct values of distances are deduced with the help of
prior information.
][ o 0
]
o 0
][ o
t
t ~ $Y Y
]
t ~ Y
* t]
t ~ [(Y
t
]
~ $Y Y
]%\
t
~t
Y
]\
t
~ [(Y t t ~ [(Y
t
] [
]%\
~ $Y Y
][
t
~ Y
t
][
t
(356)
respectively
.L]
* .L]
S Y ] \
_.
] \ d Y ]
Y]
O. ] \
d Y ] [ _._. ]] [[ m
dV Y ]
\ .V
] \
d
VY] [
(357)
40
]
9 ][/]%\ as
s
*_] ] [ V ] \ O] V Y ]
[ = Y ]
V ] \ .O Y ]
V Y ] [ BD_] 3.L] \ ] [ BDO] 3.L] \
V Y O Y ] \
]
._ Y ] \
Y ]
V
m._ Y ] \
Y ]
V Y ] [ B[c
Y ]
\
N.L] [ BS._
Y ] \[ N.V Y Y
_]
] \ ] [ \O
]
] \
V Y \O Y ]
c Y ]
[ ] \ l. Y ] [ ] \
V Y l. Y ]
[ Y ]
!b
]
/ ]%[O9]%\
[V
. Y ] \ V Y ] [
. Y ]
V Y ] \
] [ m
can be written in the form (264) in page (23) with the coefficients
Coefficients:
YY * ;
Y * OV Y .O Y Y (
YT[ * TBXc
V Y c
V Y
. Y Y V
(
YT\ *Q
c Y V Y \ Y ,
Y `* ]O Y V
c Y V Y (
Y `* V
BO
. Y Y V Y N
Y *
O Y l. Y V Y N
$
* ,
[ * #XB O Y
. Y
V Y O Y V
(
\ * ]V Y c Y Y (
*
] V l._9Y33Y(V2Y+\
B[O
(
*`# O9YNV2YCh
c3Y(
N ([(YZ*`._9Y(V2YZc3YNV
N ([
*f'.9Y(V2YOc3Y
( ([$[*
BX:O9Y(
VY
N[#\ *`TB O
./YN3Y(V2Y[
O h
V , ([ *`#B O
V2Y[O9Y(3YNV
5
V2Y3( ([ *
] Y V
BhO Y
Hc Y
V Y
]1Y
Box 33d (B. Sturmfels multipolynomial resultants solution of the Grunert distances equationsunivariate polynomial):
, :O
[ V W
[ W
Br,2:c
[ W W V W
B\ .Rc W
V W
,2:c W W[ B.R W
W
B \
[ V [ W
W
Bc W
V W [ W Ec[ W W V W
Ec
[ V W[ W
c
[ V W W =c W V W W
BYc W BA,2:c
[ W V W W
Bm.RcV W
W
,:O W W B,2:OV W W Q,:O W V W c
[ W
V W W
,:
V W[ W i,:O W V W[ BOcV \W BhO \W
\
+(8b [ V W W
7
:c [ W V W
rc. W[ 7
Y
V W[ 7c
[ W
V W 6:O
[ V W
W 6O
[ W
[ W B.%O
Y
W V W
_:O
[ V W W
,:O
[ W V W
E
V
[(Y W x.V [(Y [ Y V W W
gc [ Y W
V [(Y W BcV [(Y [ Y W BvO.
Y W V W W ,c. W V W W
. O
Y
W
V W BvR. W V
[(Y W
r,:
Y
W
W BO \
[ [ V
W
W Bi
:c W
W Bc W
V
[Y
[
W Bc
[
Y
W
V W B:c
[ W V W W
%
[
Y V W W
BO. W V
[(Y V W W
B c [ Y W V [Y t._OV [Y [ Y W V W
O
[
Y W V W
BOV
[Y
[ W V W
. O
V [(Y
[ Y
W V W W ,:
Y
W V W
Bv,:O
[
W W
[ OV
[Y W[ V W
O:O W
W
[
Y
V W
W
[ B8
[
Y
V W[ B.OV
[
Y
[ W[
%
. c W
V
[Y W
%
B c W V
[(Y V W
p,:O W
V
[Y V W {
c
[ W
B c W V
[(Y BO
Y W {c
[ V W B:O W
V W B
Y W W
,:[ VN
[(Y V W W
BO.V W[ BO[ ._ W[ 6
B :OV W W
6
B :O
W VNW
Z
OV [Y [
[ Y
W W
B7c [
[ Y
V [(Y W VNW
Zc
[ Y
NW
V [(Y V W
[ 9Y VN[(Y(V(W W
O
B
[ 9Y
W2VN[(Y(VNW2cWXh
B OVN[(Y(
[39Y
V W H
OV3[Y3
[29Y
W2V W
H
cW3V
[(Y
[ W
]
Y
B
B
B
B
41
Box 33d (B. Sturmfels multipolynomial resultants solution of the Grunert distances equationsunivariate polynomial continued):
W
B c W V
[(Y W BcV
[Y
Y \
V W
Bc W
V
[(Y
[ v,O. W W B,._
Y
V
[(Y W
UOV
[Y W
B(O \Y
V W
v,[,.
[ V W W B
O
Y W V W 6c
Y W
B3c W
V [(Y B7c
[ W V W B3O W V
[Y V W OV
[Y V W
OV [(Y [ Y W
B3O Y V [(Y [ V W W
,:
Y
V
[Y W W B,2:c
\
[ V W W E Y
V [[(\ Y
[ W W ,:O
[
Y
W V W Bic
[
Y
V
[(Y
W V W
E
Y
W
B
cV
[
Y
Y
W
B
O
[ W W
[ OO
Y
V W
",O. W V W B(c Y
W
B8c
[
Y
W
B8O
Y
W W U
Y
V W W BP[ ,._V
[Y
[ W
Oc [
[ W
B
cV [Y [ Y V W
YOV [(Y [ Y V W W ,2:
Y V
[(Y W V W B5O
[
Y V W W \V [(Y [ Y W V W Bhc Y [ V [Y W
B
[
B cVN[Y3 [3
[Y V(
W2cW B[OV
[(Y
[ V(WcW?YOWV \[(
Y cW
B[OV \[Y W
B[c
\ [ W
B[c \ [ V W
\
O
c W
V
[(Y B
cVN[Y3 [3 Y W
[
B
[
Y
W
5
cV
[Y
[ V W
Z
O
c
[ V W
[OV
[(
Y V(W2cW}5O [\Y
W2V(W?Bl,.
[
Y
V W
Bl
[ ,O.V(W3cW?
BOO: W
[ Bh:OV W
c
[ W
{
B c [
[ /Y
V3[YNV W
{
B OVN[(YN
[ [2 Y
(W2cWBO[ 9Y
V [(Y
[3 W
B c
B [
Y
V [
[( Y
Y (W2V c
[WY V(B W2c,2W/:O(B VNc[YN [
[ [299Y Y
VN[(W2Y(c Wx
c [29Y W
VN[(Y
=
B
,
O
:
Y
N
V
(
[
N
Y
(
V
W
c
c
W
W
[
OVN[(Y(
[39Y V W
Bm,2
:OVN[Y3
[39Y W2VNWi
,:O
W3V
[Y
[ c(B WOT9] Y\Y
V [(Y
[2(W2V(W/B(c
[ 9Y
W2V3[YNOW/B
[
[ 9Y W2VN[(Y(VNWH
B O \
[ OWPBQ,. cW
B c
Y
W3V [ \[(Y Q[ %: OV
[Y cWP
B \ V
[(Y
Y
V(WP[ B`,%. VNWR
O(W3V \[(Y {
c
[
Y WB
+(128b W
:O
Y
W^Bx,2:OV
[(Y
[ cW^BV
[Y
Y
cW^Bc Y
(W2V [(Y
[9MO[ Y
(WBO9Y
V [(Y [
[3V(W1BiO
[
Y
V
[(Y W;
:%c
[ VNW9
c._\
Y
V
[Y W \ %:
[ OW
VN[(Y(
[39Y
\ cWR
OVN[(YN
[2 Y
(WY
B cVN[(YN
[N \ Y
cWBA,2:O
[
Y
V(W=Bm: cW3V
[Y B
OV [Y W B5c Y W V
[(Y mc._
Y W B\O Y V W mO.V
[(Y V W m:%O
Y V W BHO [ V W BHOV
[Y
[ V W BHO
[
Y W
[ B c
[
Y V
[Y W (B
c
[
Y V
[(Y V
W B,.O [ [
Y V [
Y W B
c W V
[(Y
[ B c.
[ W B,._ Y V [(Y [ W B,._V [Y [ Y V W
[
[
[
,.
[ Y
V [(Y V W HO Y
V [(Y
[ W Bhc
[ Y
W V [Y H
OV [(Y
[ Y
V W Bm,2:OV [Y
[
Y
W T] Y
\
[
[
\
+(4c [Y B
[
Y V
[Y BO Y V [Y [ BiV [(Y [ Y O.
Y BO Y BP:%C"c.
[ BOV
[Y
Y "c._V [(Y [ Y B
\
[
[ [
B O
[
Y
[
B V
[(Y
[ T] Y
B O
[ Y
V [Y dO.V
[(Y [
+(96b 8
M. A. Fischler and R. Bolles (1981, pp. 386387, Figure 5) have demonstrated that because every term in (331)
is either a constant or of degree 2, for every real positive solution, there exist a geometrically isomorphic negative
solution. Thus there are at most four positive solutions to (331). This is because (331) has eight solutions according
to G. Chrystal (1964, p.415) who states that for independent polynomial equations in unknowns, there can be no
more solution than the product of their respective degree. Since each equation of (331) is of degree there can only
be upto eight solutions.
Finally, in comparing the two methods, the Grbner bases approach in most cases is slow and there is always a
risk of the computer breaking down during computations. Besides, the Grbner bases approach computes unwanted
intermediary elements which occupy more space and thus leads to storage problem. The overall speed of computation
is said to be proportional to twice exponential the number of variables (D. Manocha 1994 a, b, c, D. Manocha and
F. Canny 1991). This has led to various studies advocating for the use of the alternate method, the resultant and
specifically multipolynomial resultant approach. The Grbner bases can be made a bit faster by computing the reduced
Grbner bases as explained in Chapter 2. The Multipolynomial resultants on the other hand involve computing with
larger matrices which may require a lot of work. For linear systems and ternary quadrics, B. Sturmfels (1998) offers a
remedy through the application of the Jacobi determinants.
(b)
This step is commonly referred to in German literature as "Bogenschnitt" problem and in english literature as the
"ranging problem" or "Arc section" (H. Kahmen and W. Faig 1988, p.215) and is the problem of establishing the
position of a point given the distances from the unknown point
to three other known stations
In general the threedimensional "Bogenschnitt" problem can be formulated as follows: Given distances
as observations or pseudoobservations from an unknown point
to a minimum of three known points
, determine the position
of the unknown point
When only three known stations
are used to determine the position of the unknown station in threedimension, the problem reduces to that of 3d closed
form solution. We present below four approaches that can be used to solve the "3dBogenschnitt" problem in a closed
form. This problem is a traditional problem both in Geodesy, Photogrammetry and Robotics. In all the three areas, the
determination of the coordinates of the unknown point given the distances from this point to three other known points
is the key issue.
)* , ./;0
[ ;)*,O$./$
{
o [
ol [
oS "0 [
!Po [
! o
Starting from three nonlinear 3d Pythagorus distance observation equations (358) in Box (34) relating to the three
unknowns
, two equations with three unknowns are derived. Equation (358) is expanded in the form given
by (359) and differenced in (360) to eliminate the quadratic terms
. Collecting all the known terms of
{2R
42
equation (360) to the right hand side and those relating to the unknowns on the left hand side leads to equation (361)
with the terms
given by (362). The solution of the unknown terms
now involves solving equation
(361), which has two equations with three unknowns. To circumvent the problem of having more unknowns than the
4
D4
).
equations, two of the unknowns are sought in terms of the third unknown (e.g.
{2$
(i)
{3$}(R
8* 1 (f* ^U
* ^U
* 1
8* 1
* 1
* 1
t* ^U
(ii)
* 1
* 1
(iii)
*
* 1
{3"
(iv)
{2$v
{2
{VL $OC
{ ^$C#)
X
{3$"
FxY$^Y_YN
{}(R
F
$
{
{}(R
{2}(
{# #
A pair of solution
and
are obtained. The correct solution from this pair is obtained with the
help of prior information e.g. from an existing map. Of importance is the problem of bifurcation, that is, to identify
the point where the quadratic equation has only one solution, i.e. bifurcates. S. Bancroft (1985), J. S. Abel and J. W.
43
Chaffee (1991), J. W. Chaffee and J. S. Abel (1994), and E. Grafarend and J. Shan (1996) have already treated this
%4 and
D
problem. In the present study, the bifurcation point for (382) and (394) will be
respectively.
* )
* )U
In Boxes (39) and (310) the critical configuration of the twodimensional and threedimensional ranging problems are
presented. First, the derivatives of the ranging equations (397) and (3104) respectively are computed as in (398) and
(3105). The determinants of the matrices formed by the derivatives are obtained as in (3100) for the twodimensional
case, while a triple scalar product is obtained for the threedimensional case to give (3107). indicate the critical
and
lie in a line with gradient
and
configuration to be the case when the points
intercept E for the twodimensional case and when the points
and
lie on a plane for the threedimensional case.
B
[Ov[[_(+[2
B
" (Z+_Y YL1Y(}YNN;
(
+Y
[
Y
*`xYB
1YBP
YBS
*`
B
BP
BS
[
*` [ B
[ BP
[ BS
*z Y
d Y
m Y
S
d
m
B.L Y tB._ Y B.O Y
*z
d=
mX
S
}d
mX
?B.L
tB._
B.O
*z [
d [
m [
S
d
m
B.L"[3tB._[3B.O&[2
(358)
(359)
differencing above
"
"
B
*i Y
B
d Y
B
l
Y
5
B5
[
*i
B
[
d
B
[
l
.Ld
B Y l._
B Y d.cU
.Ld [ B
l._ [ B
d.cU
"
v
* Y
5
B
B Y
S
B Y
d
Z*
B[ [
B
S [
BD
d [
B
d
Y
B
[
l
Y &*
[ BS
BS
&*
BS Y
m
BS
l [
(360)
(361)
(362)
W
l W
dV W
Sl W
*z
Y
l Y
dV Y
Sl Y
*z
cW
*.;FxYB
($(W
*.9'^YBD
($V(W
*z.;}YBd
Y
*.;F
B [ ($ Y
*.9'
BD [ ($V Y
*z.;
Bd [
W *` Y
B Y
B Y
B Y
B]
B
B
B
Y
*`]
B
BD
BS
B] [
B [
BD [
BS [
(0
?LLLL7=/2)'{ W d W SV W dd W $ Y l Y dV Y dl Y cN{2P )
4
*z
Y l
Y
dV Y
Sl
Y
4 [ * W
l W
dV W
Sl W
0
f* {c' Y
V W
BD cW
W V Y3
Y $SBDS/Y Y (
W W
BD W
Y

Y
Y
Y
W
Y
B
d
V
S
l
c
{
'
/Y
=8*
BD'cY
W V W3
Y SBDl9Y W
W Y
B Y
W

8*
(363)
(364)
(365)
(366)
(367)
(368)
44
Y >@*`'cW
dV(W
SlW
l
W
>@*`'9Y
dV2Y
SlY
l
3Y
Step 2: Obtain the sylvester resultant
t
t
t Y t Y
"
s
dV W
Sl W
* t t * 3WY
9WY
t
dV2Y
SlY
E
t
* W
Y
l W
V Y
Sl W
Y
B Y
W
B Y
V W
mBD Y
W
from (371)
* {c' Y
V W
B W W
V Y
Y SBl Y Y
W W
BD W
Y

dV Y
Sm Y
d Y
Step 4: Obtain the sylvester resultant
t
t
t [ t [
"
cW
'W
dV(W
ddW
* t
*
t
9Y
'3Y
dV2Y
ddY
E
\ t \
t
s
*z W
Y
d W
V Y
Sd W
Y
B Y
W
BD Y
V W
mBD Y
W
from (375)
f* { Y
V W
BD 'cW
W V 3Y
Y dBd9Y Y
W W
B W
Y

(369)
(370)
(371)
(372)
(373)
(374)
(375)
(376)
45
.Ld
BxYNl._
B1YN*iBS.cU
BYN
(377)
L
.
d
v
?
[
B
l
_
.
Z
[
B
z
*
D
B
c
.
U
+
?
[
S
B
^ [ B
+BDL'
B Y
8*
.{cF
B Y N' [ BD
BF [ B
N'
B Y N BY
(378)
f*
^F"[ZB
BD_F
BY3
.{
BD Y N [ B
+Bm' [ BD
3F
B Y  B
"
*zVB
(379)
f*zXB
^YZ* {c
BYNN'%[B
+BmU+[?BS
3
BD^Y3(
{O
B Y N [ BD
BF [ B
N'
B Y (
* {c
BYNN"[ZB
BmU+[ZBS
N
BxYN(
{
BD Y NF [ B
B [ BD
N
B Y 
^[ZBD
BL
B1Y2
VX*
.{OF
B Y N' [ B
+Bm [ B
3
BD Y 
(380)
{cU BS Y N [ BD B [ B N' B Y N
* {c
BxYN3[XBD
Bm"[ZB
N
BD^Y2
r* {{c
BB 1Y NY2N F"[ [ZBB
BmBU [ [ZBSBD
NNF
BB xY YN(N
Y "^ Y BP Y B=V B=L1 and substituting (379) in (358)i, one gets a quadratic equation
z,$
l%. `d Y
d Y
m Y
BD._ Y VBD. Y X5
(381)
B Y
dV
S
*
B
h
B %4)
*49
lSS)*9(}Y
*
(382)
.R4
*f
l
i,NF Y
S Y
m Y
B.LxYV?B._1Y(XB5 Y
dV
d
(383)
"
*`
d
considering `
in as
where
l
i,
4v*
x*.`
)* Y
S Y
l Y
B .LxY(VB._1Y(XB5 Y
d
V
d
(384)
46
.
BD^Y3Cd.cU
BS}Y3&*z=BD._dF
BY3
.[ZBD
Cd.cU+[?BS
&*B.Ldv[?B
BD Y
B Y " * , " BD. "
BD Y
[ BD
[ B
.
h
[ BD
d
"
"
YN BD. "
BxY
* ., B+'%[?[?BSBD
B'U
BBS1}Y3
h
v[?BY
"
"
"
Y Y *
B Y X Y
*
B Y X
Y *z [ B
Y ?
$
* Y [ BS
V Y *`BF
B Y (XV
*`BF [ B
^Q Y *
*
"
*{9Y$Y( B9Y Y Y "
$
BX9Y
" 2Y " VY
BX
Y Y$Y
V
"
Y
`*{ Y$Y
$
B Y
Y  Y {
$
Y dV Y BD Y
'
SV

i*{/Y$Y3
$
BD/Y
Y {/Y$YL
dV
B
YL'2Y&SVY(
"
f*z_ '{
$
3YBD9Y
i{
$
V2YBD9Y
V
 )
z*z_'{2 Y$Y
" BD
Y Y i{ Y$Y V
BD
Y V Y  )
`*z'v5
4c
i*z=)U
"
R*f9YYN
BD9Y
Y3 Y *
3YB9Y
A 4P*z
$
V2Y?B9Y
V
x*z9Y$YN
B
YN3YL)+*i9YY3V
BD
YNV2YLX"*z Y
S Y
l Y
with *z
4d
9)BxYBD 41YB)#}Y and substituting (392) in (358) i
B OF
*F
S*z9 * B ._
h
*`
)
d
4
i,N'5
B R
B._ Y Ld
BS.O Y L=d
(385)
(386)
(387)
"
(388)
(389)
(390)
(391)
(392)
(393)
(394)
(395)
where
C *i
)
S
4
z,
*.9
*B5
B._ Y Ld
B.O Y L=S
(396)
47
YLg#xY$^Y_ CY3&*`xYB
1YBP
B5 Y
g # $ &*`
B
BP
B5
t
t Y *`B.9YBN t
*`B.9F B
t
t
Y
t
t
*`B.9'
`
*
B
9
.
'
^
Y
D
B
N
BD
t
* t L! * xYB
B
b Y BD
BD
B
B * x Y ^ Y ,, *
x1YYBD
BD ,
(397)
(398)
(399)
(3100)
,
Y Y , *z.PkLP_
,
*
thus
,
Y 1Y , *
, V
(3101)
(3102)
cd(dVX*z
c Y dN Y dVX*z
c
dN
dVX*z
(3103)
48
YL#xY$^YLY YN}*`FxYB
1YBD
zU}YBS
B[
#
$
}*`F
B
BD
zU
BS
B[ Y
(3104)
L[ #"[L$%[&[_ [2}*`F"[ZB
[ZBD
zU+[ZBS
B[
[
t Y
t
t
t *QB.;F Y B( t
*QB.;F
B( t _[ *`B.9 [ B
t
t
t
Y
L[
(3105)
t
*QB.; Y BP( t
*QB.;
BP( t *QB.; [ BP
t
t
tY
[ *QB.9 [ B
t
t
t
Y
Q
*
B
;
.
B
(
*
B
;
.
S
B
(
X
t
Y
Y
Y
B
D
B
S
B
t
Y
B
D
B
S
B
*
*
B
[
[
Y
b
B
D
B
S
B
(3106)
,
xYB 1YBD }YBS xY ^Y Y ,
BD }YBS * , *z
+ "
[ZB
B
[ZBD }YBS "[
%
[ &[
B *A{cB Y [ d Y [ BD
[ d [
B Y
S
Y 
S{B Y
B Y [ l Y [ S Y
B [
[ Cv
(3107)
S{2 Y
BD Y [ S [ Y B
[ B Y
d
[ R
Y
[ B Y [
B [
Y
[ Y B
Y [ [ Y
,
Y ^Y Y ,
(3108)
,
[ [ [ ,
describes six times volume of the tetrahedron formed by the points "F$}(N# Y Y Y ( Y N
(
N and [ F [ $ [ [ (0 Therefore
,
Y 1Y }Y , *z9
* x
(3109)
, V
"[ [ +[,
results in a system of homogeneous equations
cl(dV2S *z
c Y l( Y dVN Y *z
(3110)
c
l(
dV2
*
c [ l( [ dV2 [ *
(c)
{3R
49
page (97) either in closed form or iteratively (see E. Grafarend and P. Lohse 1991). In this section, we present the
application of B. Buchberger algorithm to solving the same problem by computing the Grbner basis of the Ideal
formed by these equations (see Chapter 2). We begin by the equations as presented in E. Grafarend and P. Lohse
(1991) (Example A3 in Appendix A.1) as follows
BB] Y Cl
] Y ] \ *z
B'B] Cl
] ] \ *z
BUmB] [
Cd
]
[ ] \ *i
]
Y l
]
d
]
[ B
*z
(3111)
._ F] Y #]
] [ ] \ &*fBO}
S] \U
F]
Y ]
S
]
[ BD
q *
(3112)
*`B]1Y3
z'B]
mB]%[
S];\
]
Y S]
Cd
]
[ BD
[ to a point {2 on the topographical surface along the
e is the displacement vector from the origin of
[ to a
orthonomal triad of base vectors {2 Y# # [_ while denotes the displacement vector from the origin of
point {] Y #] #] [  on the ellipsoid of revolution along the orthonomal triad of base vectors { Y [  generated by
(]
o [ >@* ]o [ ]
Y S
]
]
[ *, d 0
(3113)
The problem can now be formulated as follows: We are given the Cartesian coordinates {2$}(R of a point on the
topographic surface, semimajor axis {; and semiminor axis { . If for simplicity the origins and are assumed
to coincide i.e. =o, { Y [ * {3 Y [  and that the minimum of the distance V O
B is constrained by
the condition of equation (3113). The task at hand is to find the ellipsoidal Cartesian coordinates {2] Y ] ] [  of
the topographic point and the Lagrange factor {3];\O . We have obtained (3111) by taking the partial derivatives of
(3112) with respect to the unknowns {2]1YL] ]%[O#]%\_ . In order to solve the nonlinear system of equation for the
unknowns {3]^Y_#] ]%[#];\O using B. Buchberger algorithm, we write down the generators of the Ideal 1 formed by the
] Y d
] Y ] \ B] l
] ] \ BD}] [ d
] [ ] \ BX
(3114)
1 R1*
(
N]
Y dN
N]%
S
N]
[ BD
2(
e
0
The Grbner basis can now be computed by using either Mathematica software or Maple software. For this problem,
Mathematica 2.2 for DOS 387 was used. The executable command is GroebnerBasis[Polynomials,Variables in a
specified ordering]. In this case, the Grbner basis of the Ideal (3114) is computed following lexicographic ordering
as
{2] Y l
e ]
ed] [ em] \ 
"
{]^Y+l
]1Y(]%\XB#] d
] ];\BD#]%[}d
][N]%\XBX 0
?LLLL7=/2)
]
Y l
]
d
]
[ B
O
3{2] Y #]
] [ #] \ 
The results of the executable command above are the computed Grbner basis in Box (311) .
(3115)
50
311 (Computed Grbner basis for the Minimum Distance Mapping problem):
Box
\
,O0
B
] \
'.
l._
B._
B._
B
.
T] \ z'
B
BD
BD
(0
\
' mB._
\
\ Sl\ \ ][ZB \ ] \[ Bm._ \ \ S \ \ ] \
B
2. '
l._ B
BD
BD
T];\XBD
d
l._
B \
0
.\
Sd \ ] \ \ mBD
T] [ S \ ] \[ z\ ._ \ \ d
] \
3. '
l._
B
BD
B
T] \
BD
B
BD.O
0
4. T,d
] \ ] [ BS
"
\ \ B._
d \ ]
[ '._
\ mB. \ T] [ BD \ ] \
B._ \ \ ] \ B
5.
d
d
d
(0
.
\ BD
d \ ] \ \ ]
[ BD
Z] [ d \ ] \[ \ '._ \ \ d.
] \
6. P' (
}H
O
2 BD
2(
3
?BDc
(
3
ZB
3] \ l._
3(
XBD.O(
(
B.O
B.
0
"
F
[ S
]
d
\ =] \
dx'
l
]
[ B
X] [ ] \ S=]
[
7.
BX BDPX] [ BD
0
8.
T,l
] \ T]
BD
9. (
] [ B
] [ l
]
B
] [
10.
] Y B]
11.
] Y S
\ ] \
z'
l
]
[ B
X] [ ] \ S]
[ BSZ] [ d]
B
BD
0
12.
#,d
];\]^YZB
13.
'
]%[ZB
]%[l
]1YBD
]%[
14.
]
Y S
\ ] \
z._
d
]
[ B
Z][2]%\?l.L]
[ BD.cZ][}]
B
B
0
From the computed Grbner basis above, it is clearly seen that the first equation is a univariate polynomial of order
four in
which is identical to that obtained by E. Grafarend and P. Lohse (1991, p.94) and can easily be solved for
the four roots using the available software such as Matlab or Maple. Once the four roots of have been obtained, they
are substituted in the polynomial equations (4, 8 and 12) to obtain the unknown variables
respectively
thus concluding the solution of the Minimum Distance Mapping problem. In Chapter 5, we apply these computed
Grbner basis to solve the Minimum Distance Mapping problem for a real case study in order to obtain the Jacobi
ellipsoidal coordinates given geocentric cartesian coordinates. In this section, we test these computed Grbner basis
to solve the Minimum Distance Mapping problem presented by E. Grafarend and P. Lohse (1991) below:
]\
]\
{2] Y ]
#] [ 
{
{%
51
d
3980192.960
0
0
4423689.486
4157619.145
2125699.324
5069470.828
213750.930
x
=
0
0
0
529842.355
664852.698
6012793.226
3878707.846
5641092.098
4967325.285
6356852.314
6357252.314
4555616.169
4775310.888
91773.648
55331.828
2977743.624
basis in Box (311), we have the first polynomial equation as a univariate polynomial equation given as
V \ ] \\ S V [ ] \[ SV
] \
SV Y ] \ dV *
V \ *z \
V [ *`._ d.\ \ \ \
V
*`' \
HO \ S
B
D
B \
BD
\
V2YZ*`._
d.
B._
BD.
B._
V *Q'
B
BD
BD
(0
(3116)
We then proceed to compute the coefficients of the given univariate polynomial (3116) using the input data of
Table (3.1). The computed coefficients are as given in Table (3.2) . With the computed coefficients, the polyTable 3.2: Computed polynomial coefficients
Point
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
VW
7.7479e+22
5.1720e+22
2.5861e+23
2.5311e+24
1.8076e+23
5.1549e+21
2.6815e+24
4.5942e+24
VY
1.3339e+41
1.3374e+41
1.3372e+41
1.3310e+41
1.3334e+41
1.3285e+41
1.3263e+41
1.3267e+41
V[
1.3515e+55
1.3529e+55
1.3529e+55
1.3507e+55
1.3513e+55
1.3493e+55
1.3488e+55
1.3493e+55
4.3824e+68
4.3824e+68
4.3824e+68
4.3824e+68
4.3824e+68
4.3824e+68
4.3824e+68
4.3824e+68
V\
4.4420e+81
4.4420e+81
4.4420e+81
4.4420e+81
4.4420e+81
4.4420e+81
4.4420e+81
4.4420e+81
nomial roots can be computed in Matlab by the roots command (D. Hanselman and B. Littlefield 1997, p.146) as
. The obtained roots are then substituted in the polynomials (4, 8, and 12) of the
computed Grbner basis
{2]%[O#]
# ]1Y
T,d
] \ ] [ S
B
T,l
] \ T]
B
T,l
] \ T] Y BD
(3117)
respectively. The computed results presented in Table (3.3) are identical to those
to give the values of
obtained by E. Grafarend and P. Lohse (1991, Table 4, p.108). Once the ellipsoidal Cartesian coordinates have
been derived, the Jacobi ellipsoidal coordinates (ellipsoidal longitude , ellipsoidal latitute and height ) can be
computed as in Box (51) of Chapter 5.
E. Grafarend and J. Shan (1996) have defined the GPS pseudoranging fourpoint problem ("pseudo 4P") as the problem of determining the four unknowns comprising the three components of the receiver position and the stationary
receiver range bias from four observed pseudoranges to four satellite transmitter of given geocentric position. Geometrically, the four unknowns are obtained from the intersection of four spherical cones given by the pseudoranging
52
Table 3.3: Computed ellipsoidal cartesian coordinates and the Lagrange factor
]Y
Point
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
][
]
0.000
3980099.549
0.000
0.000
4420299.446
4157391.441
2125695.991
5065341.132
213453.298
0.000
0.000
529436.317
664816.285
6012783.798
3875548.170
5633237.315
4967207.921
6356752.314
6356752.314
4552101.519
4775047.592
91773.503
55286.450
2973569.442
]\
5.808116e019
3.867016e019
1.933512e018
1.897940e017
1.355437e018
3.880221e020
2.017617e017
3.450687e017
equations. Several procedures have been put forward for obtaining closed form solution of the problem. Amongst the
procedures include the vectorial approach evidenced in the works of S. Bancroft (1985), P. Singer et al. (1993), H.
Lichtenegger (1995) and A. Kleusberg (1994,1999). E. Grafarend and J. Shan (1996) propose two approaches.
"k
]
]
]
]
Y BD
Y BD
Y BD
Y BD
W
Y
[
W Y $
$ [
{ W Y
[
z]
B W
F] [ BV W
Bm] \
z]
B Y
F] [ BV Y
Bm] \
z]
B
F] [ BV
Bm] \
z]
B [
F] [ BV [
Bm] \
%2L ] Y ] ] [ #] \ o
W W $V W &*fF] WY
a WY b WY z WY
Y Y $V Y &*fF] a b z
$V
&*fF]
[ a
[ bc
3[ z
[
[_([_$VN[2&*fF] a b z
B W
B Y
B
B [
*z
*z
*z
*
z
(3118)
{ W $ W V W }3{2 Y $ Y V Y &N{
$
V
&N{ [ $ [ V [ }N{ W Y
[ 
{3] Y #]
] [ 
with
being the position of the four GPS satellites, their ranges to the stationary receiver at
given by
. The parameters
are
elements of the spherical cone that intersect at to give the coordinates
of the receiver and the stationary receiver range bias
. The equations above can be expanded and arranged in the lexicographic order
as follows
]%\
{3]^YRem]
m
e ]%[ed];\O
]
Y BD. W ] Y S]
]
BD. Y ] Y S]
]
YY BD.
] Y S]
]
Y BD.[(]^Y&S]
{3] Y #]
] [ #] \ 
]
Y ]
S]
[
]
Y ]
S]
[
]
Y ]
S]
[
]
Y ]
S]
[
BD.O W ]
BD.O Y ]
BD.O
]
BD.O([(]
[ B._V W ] [ B]
[ B._V Y ] [ B]
[ B._V
] [ B]
[ B._VN[3]%[ZB]
. W ] \ l
\
l
\
l. Y ] \ l
\
l.
] \ l
\
l. [N]%\l
W
d
Y d
Y
[ d
[
dV W
dV
Y
dV
dV
[
B W
B
Y
B
B
[
*i
*i
*i
*
i
(3119)
B]
B]
B]
B ]
* ._
\
\
*._
\
*._
\
*._
W]
Y]
[ ]]
Y l. W ]
Y l. Y ]
Y l.
]
Y l. [ ]
._V W ]
l
._V Y ]
l
._V ]
l._V
[ ]
[
B . W ]
[ B. Y ]
[ B.
]
[ B. [ ]
\ W
\
Y
\
\
[
BD
BD
BD
B
D
B W
W
D
Y BD
Y
BD
[ BD
[
BV W
BV
Y
BV
BV
[ 0
(3120)
#[ W ] \ S
W[ i
*
[Y ] \ S
#
Y
[
*
[ ] \ d [ *i
(3121)
53
BD
BDV
Bm
[ B
[ B
[ BDV
[ N0
We note immediately
that (3121)
comprises three equations which are linear with four unknowns. Treating the
unknown variable ] \ as a constant, we apply the Grbner bases and the Multipolynomial resultant techniques to solve
the linear system of equation for ] Y =
* 4^] \ N#]
D
* 41F] \ N#] [
* 41F] \ , where 4^] \ is a linear function.
with:
]^Y
with
]%
OYX>@*fcW$[2]^Y}
>@*f9YT[2]^Y}
[ >@*f
[ ] Y
1] YX* 1F]%\
[#W2];\ZSW[2] lW$[3]
dV(W[N][
[Y(];\ZS_Y#[2] l3YT[3]
dV2Y#[N][
[
] \ S Y#[ ]l
[ ]
dV
[ ] [
y
t
t Y
]
t
* t ]
t
[
t
]
t
t
t
t
][
]
[
][
t
t
t
Y
]%
]%
t
t
t
[
]%
t
]^Y*41F];\L
[W3];\?SW[
[(Y];\?S_Y#[ 0
[ ];\?S [
(3123)
as
For
(3122)
]
* 41F] \
we have
L\R>@*f'W[N]
>@*f'3Y#[N]
>@*f'
[N]
W[2T] d
cW$[3]^Y&dV(W[N][
[([ W3Y]%]%\\S
S
#
Y
2
[
T
]
9YT[3]^Y&dV2Y#[N][
[ ]%\S [2T] d
[3]^Y&dV
[N][
t
t \
] Y
t L
* t ]^Y
t
t
]Y
t
t
][
L
] [
][
t
t
\
]
L
]
[ V
[
[N]
t
t
t
t
]
The determinant obtained in (3125) gives the variable ]
* 41F];\L as
W[
[([ W3Y];];\?\?S
_Y#[ 0
[ ];\?S
S
[
]
Q
* B '
[2V2YT[ [W];\%" cW[3V
[ [(Y(]%\%"cW$[2V
[3_YT[^BP
[2V(W$[ [(YN];\1BcW[3V2Y#[ [
]%\1BcW$[2V2Y#[3
[9
Y#[ V W[ [
] \ Bx Y#[ V
[ [W ] \ Bx Y#[ V
[ W[ B
[ V W[ Y#[ r
[ V YT[ W[ r YT[ V W$[
[ /'
[ V YT[ W[
B YT[ V
[ W[ B
[ YT[ V W$[ BD W$[ V Y#[
[ d W[ V
[ Y#[ (0
Y#[
[ V W$[
(3124)
(3125)
54
For
][ *=4^];\
we have
t t t
] Y ]
]%
tt tt tt *
s
y *
] Y ]
]%
t t t
t
]1Y t ]
t ]
The determinant obtained in (3123) gives the variable
d
[ ]d
[ ] Y l
[]
(3126)
[ [ W ]
[ [(Y ]
[ [
]
\ d W$[
\ d YT[ 0
\ d
[
(3127)
as
] [ *`B
[ W[ [(Y ] \ x W$[ Y#[ [
] \ x W[ YT[
[ BP
[ Y#[ [W ] \ Bv W$[
[ [Y ] \ Bv W[
[ Y#[
YT[
[ [W ] \ Bx YT[ W$[ [
] \ Bx YT[ W$[
[ Bx
[ Y#[ W$[ r
[ W[ Y#[ r Y#[
[ W[ /
[ W[ V YT[
YT[
[ V W[ B Y#[ W[ V
[ BD
[ Y#[ V W[ BD W[
[ V YT[ S W[ Y#[ V
[ N0
On substituting the obtained values of
function in
given in Box (312).
]\
] Y *41F] \ (]
* 41F] \
and
] [ *4^] \
Box 312 (Univariate (quadratic) polynomial obtained from Multipolymomial resultants solution of
GPS pseudorange equations):
TBX
[ W[ [Y
[ Y#[ [#W W[
[ [Y Bf W[ Y#[ [
Bf Y#[
[ [W Y#[ W$[ [
9
[ V Y#[ W[
Y#[
[ V W[ Bf YT[ V
[ W[ Bf
[ Y#[ V W[ Bf W$[ V Y#[
[ W$[ V
[ Y#[
TBX
[ V Y#[ [#W
[ V W[ [(Y
W[ V Y#[ [
BP W$[ V
[ [Y B Y#[ V W[ [
" YT[ V
[ [#W
/'
[ V YT[ W$ [ Y#[
[ V W$[ BP Y#[ V
[ W[ BP
[ YT[ V W[ B
W[ V Y#[
[ W[ V
[ Y#[
8TB [
W[ V YT[ B [W YT[ V
[ [Y W[ V
[ B [(Y V W[
[ [
V W$[ YT[
[#W V Y#[ [
9 [ V Y#[ W[ Y#[
[ V W$[ B Y#[ V
[ W[ B
[ YT[ V W[ B W[ V Y#[
[ D W$[ V
[ Y#[
BS,] \
'.9
Y#[ V
[ W
[ Q W[ V Y#[
[ B
W$[ V [ YT[ BA YT[ V W$[
[ `
[ V W$[ YT[ B
[ V YT[ W[ /'
[ V YT[ W[
9Y#[2
[3V( W[PB9YT[2V
[W [B
[3YT[2V(W[ B
OW[3VYT[
[cW[3V [22YT[BAW3TBX [2V2Y#[ [#W= [3V(W[ [(YR
cW[3V2Y#[ [
B cW$[2V
[ [YB /Y#[3VNW$[ [
9Y#[2V
[ [W9
[2V2Y#[2(W$[z 9Y#[
[2V(W$[AB /Y#
[V
[W[B
[23Y#[3V(W[BfcW$[V2Y#[2
[ cW$[2V
[23Y#[2.;#TBXW[23Y#[3V
[ W[3V2Y#[2
[ _YT[W[3V
[Bf_YT[2V(W$[
[xB
[2W[3 V2Y#[1r
[NVNW$[3Y# [2 9
[3V2Y#[2W [1r9YT[3
[2V(W$[ Bx9Y#[3V
[2W[Bx
[32YT[2V(W$[Bx cW[3V2Y#[2
[OW[3V
[3YT[9B
cW3TB [
W[3V2Y#[B [#W3YT[2V
[" [(YNW[3V
[B [Y3V(W[2
[" [
V(W$[3Y#[v [WV2Y#[2
[/'
[V2Y#[2W[v
9Y#[2
[3V(W[?B9Y#[3V
[W$[B
[3YT[2V(W[BcW$[V2Y#[2
[&ScW[3V
[23Y#[2d. W}d.;#9Y#[2W[3
[&cW$[
[3_Y#[B
W[ Y#[
[ B YT[
[ W[
[ Y#[ W$[ B
[ W[ Y#[ /
[ V Y#[ W$[ Y#[
[ V W[ B Y#[ V
[ W[ B
[ YT[ V W[ B
W[ V Y#[
[ A W[ V
[ YT[ ZBzV W NTBX
[ W[ [(Y
[ Y#[ [#W A W[
[ [(Y Bz W[ Y#[ [
Bz YT[
[ [W
Y#[ W[ [
9
[ V Y#[ W[ d YT[
[ V W[ B Y#[ V
[ W$[ BD
[ Y#[ V W[ BD W[ V YT[
[ S W[ V
[ Y#[ ] \
#TBX W[ Y#[ V [ W[ V YT[ [ YT[ W$[ V [ B YT[ V W$[ [ Bp [ W[ V Y#[ [ V W[ Y#[ /' [ V YT[ W[
Y#[
[ V W[ Bv Y#
[ V
[ W$[ Bv
[
YT[ V W[ BP W[ V Y#
[
[ x W[ V
[
YT[ cBP
W
B W
Y#[ W[
[
W[
[ Y#[ B
W[ Y#[
[ B YT[
[ W[
[ Y#[ W$[ B
[ W[ Y#[ /
[ V Y#[ W$[ Y#[
[ V W[ B Y#[ V
[ W[ B
[ YT[ V W[ B
W[ V Y#[
[ d W$[ V
[ Y#[ BDV W
i Y#[ V
[ W[ d W[ V YT[
[ BD W[ V
[ YT[ BD YT[ V W$[
[ S
[ V W[ YT[ B
[3V2Y#[2W[2 /
[3V2Y#[2(W$[d9YT[
[3V(W[?B/Y#[3V
[W$[?BD
[3Y#[3V(W[?BDOW[V2YT[
[}ScW[2V
[22YT[B(W2
{ W[ ] Y l W$[ ]
dV W[ ] [ [W ] \ S W[
Y#[ ] Y d YT[ ]
d V Y#[ ] [ [Y ] \ S Y#[
?LLL7=/2)T
[ ] Y l
[ ]
SV [ ] [ [
] \ S
[ O3{2] Y #]
] [ ] \ 
(3128)
55
Y @> *tTBX [ # Y#[ W[ YT[ [ W$[ [ W[ Y#[ Bl W[ [ Y#[ Bd YT[ W[ [ W[ Y#[ [ Bl [ YT[ V W$[ ] [
Y#[
[ V W$[ ]
[
[ W$[ V YT[ ] [ B
W$[
[ V Y#
[ ] [ B YT[ W$[ V
[ ]
[ W$[ YT[ V
[ ] [
B
[ Y#[ [#W
] \
Y#[
[ [W ] \
[ W$[ [(Y ] \ B W[
[ [(Y ] \ B Y#[ W$[ [
] \ S W[ YT[ [
] \
4
TBX
[ T Y#[ S Y#[
[ B
[ Y#[ ]
d Y#[
[ ]
BD
[ V Y#[ ] [ S Y#[ V
[ ] [ BD
[ [(Y ] \ S Y#[ [
] \
4 [ >>*`
*`TBX
[ T W[ S W[
[ B
[ W[ ]
d W[
[ ]
BD
[ V W[ ] [ S W[ V
[ ] [ BD
[ [W ] \ S W[ [
] \
4_\>*`TBX9YT[TW[ScW[3_Y#[ZB9Y#[2W[N]
d[ O]%W\ [22YT[3]
BD9YT[V(W[N]%[ScW[3V2Y#[3][ZBD/Y#[ [W2]%\ScW[ [Y(];\
4 >*z [d [3]^Y&l [N]
S
V
N
[
SV2
Y#[N][ [(
Y]%\
4 >*zLY#[d9YT[3]^Y&l3Y#[N]
SV(W[N][ [W3]%\O0
4 >*z2W[dcW$[3]^Y&lW[N]
][ ]\
]
* 1F] \ (
] [ * 1F] \
] Y * ^] \ (#]
* ^] \ ] [ * 1F] \
We notice from the computed Groebner basis in Box (32) that 4 is a polynomial with only
and
as variables.
With 4 expressed as
, it is substituted in 4 to obtain
which together with
are
4
4
4
substituted in 4 to give
. On substituting the obtained values of
and
4
4
=4
4
in (3119i) we get a quadratic equation in
given in Box (314) as
] [ * 1F] \
] Y * ^] \
]%\
Box 314 (Univariate (quadratic) polynomial obtained from Grbner basis solution of GPS
pseudorange equations ):
TBX
[ Y#[ [#W Y#[
[ [W
[ W$[ [(Y B W[
[ [Y B Y#[ W$[ [
W$[ Y#[ [
/
[ Y#[ V W$[ B
Y#[
[ V W$[ BD
[ W[ V Y#[ d W[
[ V YT[ d YT[ W[ V
[ BD W[ YT[ V
[
TBX
[ V Y#[ #BX
[ YT[ [W d YT[
[ [W
[ W$[ [(Y Bl W[
[ [(Y BS Y#[ W$[ [
W$[ YT[ [
/'
[ YT[ V W[ Bd Y#[
[ V W$[ Bd
[ W[ V Y#[ i W[
[ V YT[
/Y#[2(W$[2V
[PBcW[2YT[2V
[Z9YT[V
[TBX
[23Y#[ [W`9YT[
[ [W=Q
[2W[ [Y=BAOW[2
[ [(Y=B9YT[W[ [
OW[22YT[ [
/
[2YT[2V(W$[vBA9YT[
[2V(W[vBA
[2W[3V2Y#[=fOW[2
[2V2YT[=`9YT[ W$[2V
[vBAcW[23 Y#[3V
[2RB
[ [(Y
/Y#[ [
/'
[3YT[BA 9Y#[2
[2
'
[#BX
[3VYT[OTBX
[3Y#[ [#Wv`9Y#[2
[ [#W"`
[2W[ [(YvBOW[2
[ [(YPB
/Y#[2(W$[ [
lcW$[ 3Y#[ [
9
[3 Y#[3V(W[XB9YT[
[3V(W[XB
[2W [3V2Y#[lcW[2
[3 V2Y#[m9Y#[2W[3V
[BDcW[23Y#[3V
[C
/Y#[3V
[OTBX
[3Y#[ [#W 9YT[
[ [W
[2(W$[ [(Y"BQcW[
[ [(YvB`9YT[ W[ [
cW$[3YT[ [
/'
[3YT[2V(W[B
/Y#[2
[2V(W$[B
[2(W$[2V2YT[&S OW[2
[2V2YT[} /Y#[W$[2V
[B cW$[3YT[2V
[2 B
[ [YS /Y#[ [
/
[23Y#[B9Y#[2
[21
V
[ TBX
[ Y#[ [#W Y#[
[ [W
[ W[ [Y B W[
[ [(Y B Y#[ W$[ [
W$[ Y#[ [
9
[ Y#[ V W[ B YT[
[ V W[ B
[ W$[ V YT[ S W[
[ V Y#[ d Y#[ W$[ V
[ B W[ Y#[ V
[ C [
L
[ Bl,] \
+(2((a [ YT[ Y#[ [ B [ V YT[ TBX [ Y#[ W[ YT[ [ W$[ [ W$[ Y#[ Bp W[ [ Y#[ B YT[ W$[ [
W[ YT[
[ /'
[ YT[ V W$
[ B
YT[
[ V W[
B
[ W[ V Y#[
W$[
[
V Y#[ Y#[ W[ V
[ B W[ Y#[ V
[
p
Y#[ V
[ TBX
[ Y#[ W$[ YT[
[ W$[
[ W$[ YT[ B W[
[ Y#[ B Y#[ W[
[ W[ Y#[
[ 9
[ Y#[ V W[ B
Y#[
[ V W$[ B
[ W[ V YT[ W[
[ V Y#[ YT[ W[ V
[ B W$[ YT[ V
[ # /'
[ YT[ B Y#[
[ B
W N#BX [ V Y#[ TBX [ Y#[ [W YT[ [ [W [ W[ [Y B W$[ [ [(Y B Y#[ W[ [ W[ YT[ [ / [ Y#[ V W$[ B
Y#[
[ V
W$[ BA
[
W[ V Y#[ f W$[
[
V Y#[ ` Y#
[ W[ V
[ B W$[
Y#[ V
[ Xf YT[ V
[ #
BX
[ YT[ [W
f Y#
[
[ [W
[ W$[ [(Y Bl W[
[ [(Y BS Y#[ W$[ [
W$[ YT[ [
/'
[ YT[ V W[ Bd Y#[
[ V W$[ Bd
[ W[ V Y#[ i W[
[ V YT[
Y#[ W$[ V
[ BS W$[ Y#[ V
[ }BS
[ [(Y m Y#[ [
9
[ Y#[ BS Y#[
[ }Bd.9#B
[
[ #BX
[ Y#[ m Y#[
[ B
[3VYT[OTBX
[3Y#[3W$[x9YT[
[2W$[x
[W$[2_YT[B OW[2
[2LY#[B 9Y#[2W[3
[xcW[23Y#[3
[2 9
[3Y#[NV(W[rB
/Y#[2
[2V(W$[B
[2W[3VYT[vfcW[2
[3VYT[p9Y#[2W[3V
[BQcW[23Y#[3V
[2R`9Y#[2V
[OTBX
[3Y#[3W$[Pf9Y#[2
[3W[
[2(W$[2LY#[RBlcW[2
[3_Y#[Bl9YT[W[3
[zcW$[3YT[2
[ /'
[3YT[2V(W[Bl9YT[
[3V(W[Bl
[2W[3V2Y#[icW[2
[3VYT[X
/Y#[2(W$[2V
[tB OW[22YT[2V
[# /'
[22YT[B 9Y#[
[ V
[TBX
[23Y#[3W[ 9Y#[2
[3W[
[W$[2_YT[tB
OW[2
[2LY#[RBm9Y#[2W[3
[icW[23Y#[3
[2 9
[23Y#[3V( W[Bl9Y#[
[2V(W$[RB
[W$[2V2Y#[icW$[
[3V2Y#[i9Y#[W[3V
[RB
W[ YT[ V
[ # L
[ B W 3'
[ TBX
[ V Y#[ TBX
[ Y#[ [W S Y#[
[ [W l
[ W$[ [(Y BD W[
[ [(Y BD Y#[ W$[ [
W[ YT[ [
/
[ YT[ V W$[ B Y# [
[ V W$[ B
[ W$[ V YT[ W[
[ V YT[ Y#[ W$[ V
[ B W[ Y#[ V
[ f
Y#[ V
[ TBX
[ Y#[ [#W YT[
[ [W
[ W$[ [(Y BQ W[
[ [(Y B` YT[ W[ [
W$[ YT[ [
/'
[ YT[ V W[ B
Y#[
[ V W$[ B
[ W$[ V YT[ S W [
[ V YT[ Y#[ W$[ V
[ B W$[ YT [ V
[ B
[ [ Y S Y#[ [
/
[ Y#[ B Y#[
[ 1
V
[ TBX
[ Y#[ [#W YT[
[ [#W
[ W[ [Y B W$[
[ [Y B YT[ W$[ [
W$[ YT[ [
/'
[ YT[ V W[ B
Y#[
[ V W$[ Bi
[ W$[ V YT[ W[
[ V YT[ Y#[ W$[ V
[ Bi W[ YT[ V
[ [
_
[ . W A.;#TBX
[ Y#[ W[
Y#[
[ W[ i
[ W[ Y#[ Bm W$[
[ YT[ Bl Y#[ W$[
[ i W[ Y#[
[ 9
[ Y#[ V W[ Bl Y#[
[ V W[ Bl
[ W[ V YT[
W[
[ V YT[ Y#[ W [ V
[ B W$[ Y#[ V
[ BV W N#BX
[ YT[ [W YT[
[ [W
[ W[ [Y B W$[
[ [Y B
/Y#[2(W$[ [
cW$[23YT[ [
/'
[3YT[2V(W[B9YT[3
[2V(W$[B
[3W[3VYT[cW[2
[3VYT[19Y#[2W[3V
[BcW[33Y#[3V
[2];\_
56
Box 314 (Univariate (quadratic) polynomial obtained from Grbner basis solution of GPS
pseudorange equations continued):
[ [ TBX [ Y#[ Y#[ [ Bt [ V Y#[ #BX [ YT[ W$[ 8 YT[ [ W$[ 8 [ W[ YT[ B W$[ [ Y#[ B
YT[ W
[
[ m
W$[ Y#[
[ 9
[ Y#[ V
W[ BS Y#
[
[ V W$[ BS
[ W$[ V Y#[ m W$[
[ V Y#[ m
Y#[ W[ V
[ BS W$[ YT
[ V
[
YT[ V
[ #BX
[ YT[ W[ Y#[
[ W[
[ W[ Y#[ Bp W$[
[ YT[ B YT[ W[
[ W$[ YT[
[ /'
[ YT[ V W[ B
YT[
[ V W[ BD
[ W$[ V Y#[ l W[
[ V YT[ S Y#[ W[ V
[ BD W$[ Y#[ V
[ /'
[ Y#[ B Y#[
[ SV
[ TBX
[ Y#[ W$[
9YT[
[3W$[i
[W$[2_YT[RBlcW[2
[3_Y#[RBl9YT[W[3
[XzOW[22YT[2
[2 /'
[3YT[2V(W[ Bm9YT[
[2V(W[Bd
[W[3V2Y#[X
cW$[
[3V2Y#[=Q9Y#[2W[3V
[PBcW[23Y#[3V
[#_
[PBcW
B W
TBX
[3Y#[3W$[=Q/Y#[
[2W$[Q
[2W[3_Y#[PB
cW$[
[3_YT[Bm9YT[W[N
[zOW[3YT[2
[/'
[3YT[2V(W[Bl9YT[
[3V(W[Bl
[W[NV2Y#[OW[2
[2V2YT[z9YT[W$[2V
[B
cW$[3Y#[3V
[CBV(W
TBX
[2_YT[&D9Y#[3
[B
[3V2Y#[O#BX
[3YT[2W$[+D9YT[
[3W$[+D
[2W[3_Y#[BOW[2
[2LY#[B
9YT[W[3
[ZmcW$[3Y#[3
[ 9
[3Y#[3V(W[BS9Y#[2
[3VNW$[ BS
[W$[2V2Y#[mcW$[
[3V2Y#[m9Y#[2W[3V
[ BScW$[3YT[2V
[2
YT[ V
[ #BX
[ YT[ W[ Y#[
[ W[
[ W[ Y#[ Bp W$[
[ YT[ B YT[ W[
[ W$[ YT[
[ /'
[ YT[ V W[ B
YT[
[ V W[ BD
[ W$[ V YT[ S W[
[ V Y#[ d YT[ W$[ V
[ B W[ Y#[ V
[ # 9
[ Y#[ BD Y#[
[ BD W
The algorithms for solving the unknown value ] \ (i.e. the range bias) from Boxes (312) or (314) and the respective
+((e
stationary receiver coordinates are AwangeGrafarend Groebner basis algorithm and AwangeGrafarend Multipolynomial Resultant algorithm and can be accessed in the GPS toolbox (http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/gpstoolbox).
The distinction between the Multipolynomial resultant approach and the approach of E. Grafarend and J. Shan (1996)
is that; for Multipolynomial resultant approach, we do not have to invert the coefficient matrix but instead use the
necessary and sufficient conditions that the determinant has to vanish if the three equations have a nontrivial solution.
We next consider an example that has been considered already by A. Kleusberg (1994) and E. Grafarend and J. Shan
(1996).
Example 32: From the coordinates of four GPS satellites given in Table (3.4) below, we apply the AwangeGrafarend
Groebner basis algorithm and AwangeGrafarend Multipolynomial Resultant algorithm to compute the
coordinates of the stationary GPS receiver and the receiver range bias term. The AwangeGrafarend Groebner basis algorithm and AwangeGrafarend Multipolynomial Resultant algorithm compute the coefficients
of the quadratic equations in Boxes (312) and (314) respectively as
9.104704113943708e1,
5.233385578536521e+7 and
5.233405293375e+9.
VY * Y *
V
*
*
VW * W *
] ! * !
a ! * !
b ! *V !
Table 3.4: Geocentric coordinates of four GPS satellites and the pseudoranging observations
0
1
2
3
1.483230866e+7
1.579985405e+7
1.98481891e+6
1.248027319e+7
2.046671589e+7
1.330112917e+7
1.186767296e+7
2.338256053e+7
7.42863475e+6
1.713383824e+7
2.371692013e+7
3.27847268e+6
2.4310764064e+7
2.2914600784e+7
2.0628809405e+7
2.3422377972e+7
{3];\O
] Y * ^] \ (#]
*
Once these coefficients have been computed, the algorithms proceed to solve (using these coefficients) the roots
of the quadratic equations in Boxes (312) and (314) respectively giving the stationary receiver range bias term. The
admissible value of the stationary receiver range bias term is then substituted in the expressions
4
to give the values of stationary receiver coordinates
respectively. The complete pair
4
4
of solutions are
{3] Y ]
#] [ 
]Y `
* B.%O./,._;0 %,. #]
*4_:c4R;0 % #] [ * B 4_._90 ,O.
];\ `
* BO4R4R9,90,2:% ] \
1] YZ*Q,O,,O,%O90 OB :O #]
*BXOc.%;0 :O9, ]%[*=.c4L/,0 O.
] \ *`B ,2O90 O: ] \
From the results above, we note that the solution space is non unique. In order to decide between the correct solution
B
from the pair above, we compute the norm (length) of the positional vector
and
If
the receiver coordinates are in the Global Reference Frame, the norm of the positional vector of the receiver station
will approximate the value of the Earths radius while the norm for the other pair of solution will be in space. The
computed norms are
"
{3] [ # ]
] Y  ] \
{3]%[O#]
]^Y ]
{3]%[O#]
]^Y ]
B
thus clearly giving the second solution {]%[_] #]1Y ] \
{] [ ]
#] Y  ] \ 0
* ,2%/_:O:90 O.:
\B z
*
\ :4O;0 .9,V
57
In this section, we consider the case where more than four satellites have been observed. We will apply the GaussJacobi combinatorial algorithm to the example provided by G. Strang and K. Borre (1997) and compare the results
obtained to those obtained by the linear GaussMarkov Model after linearization of the observations by Taylor series
expansion. Pseudoranges are measured to six satellites whose coordinates are also given as in Table (3.5).
] ! *z!
a ! *zN!
b ! *zVN!
Table 3.5: Geocentric coordinates of six GPS satellites and the pseudorange observations
~
23
9
5
1
21
17
14177553.47
15097199.81
23460342.33
8206488.95
1399988.07
6995655.48
18814768.09
4636088.67
9433518.58
18217989.14
17563734.90
23537808.26
12243866.38
21326706.55
8174941.25
17605231.99
19705591.18
9927906.48
21119278.32
22527064.18
23674159.88
20951647.38
20155401.42
24222110.91
From the data above and using (226) in page (13), we obtain 15 possible combinations listed in Table (3.6) whose
PDOP are computed as in B. Hofmann et al (1994, pp. 249253) below.
Table 3.6: Possible combinations and the computed PDOP
Combination Number Combination Computed PDOP
1
23951
4.8
2
239521
8.6
3
239517
4.0
4
239121
6.5
5
239117
3.3
6
2392117
3.6
7
235121
6.6
8
235117
6.6
9
2352117
4.8
10
2312117
137.8
11
95121
5.6
12
95117
14.0
13
952117
6.6
14
912117
5.2
15
512117
6.6
It is clearly seen from the computed PDOP that the 10th combination had a poor geometry. We plot the PDOP versus
the combination number to have a clear picture in Figure (3.2).
Figure (3.2) indicates clearly that the 10th combination had a weaker geometry. The GaussJacobi combinatorial
algorithm takes care of this weaker geometry during the adjustment process by the use of the variancecovariance
matrix computed through nonlinear error propagation for that respective set. We next use the derived quadratic
formulae by Grbner basis in Box (312) or by Multipolynomial resultants in Box (314) for the minimal case to
compute the coefficients presented in Table (3.7).
From the computed coefficients in Table (3.7), the 10th combination is once again identified as having significantly
different values from the rest. Using the coefficients of Table (3.7), we compute the solution of the minimal combinatorial sets (each combination ) being the receiver position
and the range bias
and present them in Table
(3.8).
{
The final adjustment is performed using the linear GaussMarkov model with the random values of Table (3.8) as
pseudoobservations and the dispersion matrix obtained from the nonlinear error propagation (Chapter 2).
Figure (3.3) gives the plot of the scatter of the 15 GaussJacobi combinatorial solutions (shown by points) around
the adjusted value (indicated by a star), while Figure (3.4) gives the magnification of the scatter of 14 GaussJacobi
combinatorial solutions (shown by points) that are very close to the adjusted value (indicated by a star) ignoring the
outlying point in Figure (3.3).
58
120
100
PDOP
80
60
40
20
10
15
Combinatorial No.
0.914220949236445
0.934176403102736
0.921130625833683
0.865060899130107
0.922335616484969
0.919296962706157
0.894980063579044
0.917233949644576
0.925853049262193
3369.83293928593
0.877892756651551
0.942581538318523
0.908215141659006
0.883364070549387
0.866750765656126
VY
52374122.9848733
50396827.4998945
51741826.0147786
54950460.2842167
51877166.0451888
51562232.9601199
53302005.6927825
52194946.1124139
51140847.6331213
1792713339.80277
54023883.5656926
50793361.5303674
52246642.0794924
53566554.3869961
54380648.2092251
VW
49022682.3125
7915541824.84375
343282824.25
10201105114.5
280298481.625
1354267366.4375
3642644147.5625
132408747.46875
3726719112.1875
6251615074927.06
6514735288.13762
784684294.241371
2499054749.05572
5481411035.37882
7320871488.80859
V
d
=
59
3dplot of the scatter of the 15combinatorial solutions around the adjusted value
1000
(Z+4088000)m
500
500
1000
1500
0.7
0.8
7050
0.9
7000
1
x 10
6950
6900
1.1
6850
1.2
6800
1.3
(Y4840000)m
6750
(X+590000)m
Figure 3.3: Scatter of the 15 GaussJacobi combinatorial solutions ( ) around the adjusted value ( ).
3dplot of the scatter of the 14combinatorial solutions around the adjusted value
500
(Z+4088000)m
400
300
200
100
0
7750
7800
7050
7850
7000
7900
6950
6900
7950
6850
8000
(Y4840000)m
6800
8050
6750
(X+590000)m
Figure 3.4: Magnification of the scatter of 14 GaussJacobi combinatorial solutions ( ) around the adjusted value ( ).
3233
We conclude in this section by comparing between the linearized least squares approach and the GaussJacobi combinatorial approach. Using the GaussJacobi combinatorial approach, the stationary receiver position and the stationary
receiver range bias are computed as discussed in Section (3232). For the linearized least squares approach, the nonlinear observation equations (3118) are linearized using Taylor series expansion for the satellites in Table (3.5) to
generate the Jacobi matrix required for the linearized least squares approach. As approximate starting values, we
first initiated the stationary receiver position and the stationary receiver range bias as zero and set the convergence
as the difference of values between two successive iterations. With approximate values taken as
limit to
In the second case, we considered the values of the
zero, 6 iterations were required for convergence limit
,"km,2
,Pk,2;0
60
GaussJacobi combinatorial algorithm as the starting (approximate) values for the linearized least squares solution.
This time round, only two iterations were required to achieve convergence.
From the nonlinear equations (3118) and the results of both linearized least squares approach and GaussJacobi
combinatorial algorithm, we computed the residuals and obtained the squares of these residuals and finally the error
norm from
! BD' ] Y BD!
z]
B(!
] [ BDVN!'
B] \ )
0
(3129)
!
Y
where {] Y ] ] [ ] \  are the computed values of the stationary receiver position and the stationary receiver range
bias, {!T$N!#$VN!^)*A{c,203030:9 are the coordinates of the six satellites in Table (3.5) and { !^)*{c,203030:9 are
*
Table (3.9) gives the obtained results from the GaussJacobi combinatorial algorithm and those obtained from linearized Least squares approach by first linearizing using Taylor series expansion. Table (3.10) presents the rootmeansquareerrors and the differences between the solutions of the two procedures. In Table (3.11), we present the
computed residuals, sum of squares of these residuals and the computed error norm from (3129). The computed error
norm are identical for both procedures.
Further comparison of the two procedures is to be found in Chapter (5) where the procedures are used to compute
the 7datum parameter transformation. Once the parameters have been computed, they are used to transform the
Cartesian coordinates from the Local Reference System (Table 5.5) to the Global Reference System (WGS 84, Table
5.6) as shown in Tables (5.10) and Table (5.11). The residuals from both GaussJacobi combinatorial algorithm and
Linearized Least Squares Solution are in the same range in magnitude. We also compute the residual norm (square
root of the sum of squares of residuals) and present them in Table (5.12) in page (93). In this case, the error norm from
the GaussJacobi combinatorial algorithm is somewhat better than those of the linearized least squares solution.
V
Table 3.9: Computed receiver position and stationary receiver range bias
GJ Approach
(Linearized)LS
Difference
d
596929.6542
596929.6535
0.0007
x
4847851.5021
4847851.5526
0.0505
=
4088226.7858
4088226.7957
0.0098
15.5098
15.5181
0.0083
Table 3.10: Computed rootmeansquare errors and the difference in solution between the two approaches
GJApproach
GM solution
g
6.4968
34.3769
g
11.0141
58.2787
g
5.4789
28.9909
8.8071
46.6018
61
Let us now suppose that satellite number 23 had its pseudorange measurement longer by 500m owing to multipath
effect. This particular satellite is chosen as it is the first in the combinatorial formation and as such the left most
element of the combination and thus easy to identify in the combinatorial list of Table (3.12). For each combination,
we compute the position by using either the Grbner basis or Multipolynomial resultant algebraic tools. Once the
positions have been obtained, the positional norm are then computed for each combination and written besides the
combinations as in Table (3.12).
Table 3.12: Computed positional norm
Combination Number Combination Positional norm (km)
1
23951
6368.126
2
239521
6367.147
3
239517
6368.387
4
239121
6370.117
5
239117
6368.474
6
2392117
6368.638
7
235121
6368.894
8
235117
6368.256
9
2352117
6368.005
10
2312117
6398.053
11
95121
6369.723
12
95117
6369.522
13
952117
6369.647
14
912117
6369.711
15
512117
6369.749
It is clearly seen that the computed positional norms of the first 10 combinatorials were varying while the variation of
the computed positional norm of the last 5 combinatorial was to a lesser degree. The possible explanation could be that
satellite number 23 whose pseudorange is contaminated appeared in the first 10 combinations. The last 5 combinations
are not affected with satellite number 23. In order to view the variation of the computed positional norm, we have
computed the mean of these positional norms and subtracted it from the other norms. In Figure (3.5), we have plotted
these deviations of the computed positional norm from the mean positional norm. Whereas the deviations of the
first 10 combinations are seen to fluctuate, those of the last 5 combinations are seen to be almost constant and with
minimum deviation from the mean thus clearly indicating the presence of outlier in the first 10 combinations. Since
62
the satellite 23 is the only common satellite in the first 10 combinations, this outlier could be attributed to it.
4
x 10
2.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
10
Combinatorial No.
15
Chapter 4
Haumannstr. (1324.238 m)
Schloplatz (566.864 m)
Dach FH (269.231 m)
K1
Liederhalle (430.529 m)
Lindenmuseum (364.980 m)
63
64
41
Observations
The following experiment was performed at the centre of Stuttgart on one of the pillars of the University buildings
along Kepler Strasse 11 as depicted by Figure (4.1). The testnetwork "Stuttgart Central" consisted of 8 GPS points
listed in Table (4.1). A theodolite has been stationed at pillar K1 whose astronomical longitude ! as well as astronomic latitude "! were known from previous astrogeodetic observations made by the Department of Geodesy
and GeoInformatics, Stuttgart University. Since theodolite observations of type horizontal directions as well as
vertical directions from the pillar K1 to the target points #%$&#('*)+$,.$
/0/
/0$213$%4.$ were only partially available we
decided to simulate the horizontal and vertical directions from the given values of 56 $7" 98 as well as the Cartesian
coordinates of the station point :<;=$?>@$%AB and target points :C;EDF$G> D $%A D B using (318) and (319). The relationship between the observations of type horizontal directions , vertical directions , values of 5 $%" 98 and the Cartesian
coordinates of the station point :<;($G>@$%A9B and target points :C;EDF$G> D $7A D B that enabled generation of the observation
data sets 1 to 11 is presented in Chapter 3, Section (314). Such a procedure had also the advantage that we had
full control of the algorithms that we discussed in Chapter 2. In detail, the directional parameters 5 $%" 98 of the
local gravity vector were adopted from the astrogeodetic observations reported by S. Kurz (1996 p.46) with a rootmeansquare error HJIK'LH3MN'O)PRQ . Table (4.1) contains the :<;=$?>@$%AB coordinates obtained from a GPS survey of
the testnetwork "Stuttgart Central", in particular with rootmeansquare errors :CHJS&$H.TU$2HWV.B neglecting the covariances :XHJSTU$2HJTV9$H3V6SYB . The spherical coordinates of the relative position vector, namely of the coordinate differences
:Z D9[ Z9$2\ D [ \$?] D [ ]6B , are called horizontal directions , vertical directions and distances ^ and are given by
Table (4.2). The standard deviations/rootmeansquare errors were fixed to HW_`'N1+QJ$2HWab'K1+Q . Such root mean square
errors can be obtained on the basis of a proper refraction model. Since the horizontal and vertical directions of Table
(4.2) were simulated data, with zero noise level, we used a random generator randn in MATLAB version 5.3 (e.g. D.
Hanselman and B. Littlefield 1997, pp. 84, 144) to produce additional observational data sets within the framework of
the given rootmeansquare errors. For each observable of type and c , 30 randomly simulated data were obtained
and the mean taken. Let us refer to the observational data sets 50?$c 8 $?#d'e)+$,.$/
/0/
$21J$74$ of Table (4.3) to Table
(4.13) which were enriched by the rootmeansquare errors of the individual randomly generated observations as well
as by the differences f(@gh'i [ 2:CjRk
lJk0m%npok
qJB7$frcsgt'* [ :<jRk
lJk0m%npok
qJB . Such differences :Xf(G$%f(uB
indicate the difference between the ideal values of Table (4.2) and those randomly generated.
ervations are thus designed such that by observing the other seven GPS stations, the orientation of the Local Level
Reference Frame vdw whose origin is station K1, to the Global Reference Frame v
x is obtained. The relationship
between the vyw Reference Frame and the vyx Reference Frame is presented in Chapter 3, Section (313). The direction of Schlossplatz is chosen as the zero direction of the theodolite and this leads to the determination of the
third component z! of the threedimensional orientation parameters. To each of the GPS target points # , the observations of the type horizontal directions and the vertical directions are measured. The spatial distances
^ { :X}`$2}~FB'}s [ } are readily obtained from the observation of type horizontal directions and vertical directions using the algebraic computational techniques discussed in Chapter 2. Once we have Euclidean distances
^ computed from the observations of type horizontal directions and vertical directions c , a foward computation
using any of the threedimensional ranging ( "Bogenschnitt") procedures discussed in Section (321) is used to compute the coordinates 5
$$7 86 from which the direction parameters ( $7" ) of the local gravity vector at K1
and the "orientation unknown" element z are finally computed as discussed in J. L. Awange (1999) and E. Grafarend
and J. L. Awange (2000). The obtained values are then compared to the starting values. The following symbols have
been used: H S $H T $H V are the standard errors of the GPS Cartesian coordinates. Covariances H ST $2H TV $2H V6S were
neglected. H3_!$2H3a are the standard deviation of horizontal and vertical directions respectively after an adjustment,
f(_$fra the magnitude of the noise on the horizontal and vertical directions, respectively.
Table 4.1: GPS Coordinates in the Global Reference Frame vyxR:C$2!$%cB ,
Station
b:CB
s:CB
d:CB
Dach K1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
4157066.1116
4157246.5346
4156749.5977
4156748.6829
4157066.8851
4157266.6181
4157307.5147
4157244.9515
671429.6655
671877.0281
672711.4554
671171.9385
671064.9381
671099.1577
671171.7006
671338.5915
4774879.3704
4774581.6314
4774981.5459
4775235.5483
4774865.8238
4774689.8536
4774690.5691
4774699.9070
WH
~
1.07
0.76
1.77
1.93
1.38
1.29
0.20
2.80
1.06
0.76
1.59
1.84
1.29
1.28
0.10
1.50
1.09
0.76
1.61
1.87
1.38
1.34
0.30
3.10
41. OBSERVATIONS
65
Table 4.2: Ideal spherical coordinates of the relative position vector in the Local Horizontal Reference Frame
Spatial distances, horizontal directions, vertical directions
Station Observed
Distances
Horizontal
Vertical
from K1
(m)
directions(gon) directions(gon)
Schlossplatz (1)
566.8635
52.320062
6.705164
Haussmanstr. (2)
1324.2380
107.160333
0.271038
Eduardpfeiffer (3)
542.2609
224.582723
4.036011
Lindenmuseum (4) 364.9797
293.965493
8.398004
Liederhalle (5)
430.5286
336.851237
6.941728
Dach LVM (6)
400.5837
347.702846
1.921509
Dach FH (7)
269.2309
370.832476
6.686951
vyw :
Table 4.3: Randomly generated spherical coordinates of the relative position vector: horizontal directions and
vertical directions c?$?#')+$,J$/
/0/
$21J$74$ rootmeansquare errors of individual observations, differences f(gh'
[ ?:CjRk0l3k0m%npo2kqJB7$frcYgt'c [ c:<j+k0lJk
mno2k
qJB with respect to :<G$cuB ideal data of Table 4.2, first data set: set 1
St. H/Dir.(gon) V/Dir.(gon)
H _ :<6B H a :<6B f _ :<6B f a :<6B
1
0.000000
6.705138
0.0025794 0.0024898 0.000228 0.000039
2
54.840342
0.271005
0.0028756 0.0027171 0.000298 0.000033
3 172.262141
4.035491
0.0023303 0.0022050 0.000293
0.000520
4 241.644854
8.398175
0.0025255 0.0024874 0.000350
0.000171
5 284.531189
6.942558
0.0020781 0.0022399 0.000024 0.000830
6 295.382909
1.921008
0.0029555 0.0024234 0.000278 0.000275
7 318.512158
6.687226
0.0026747 0.0024193 0.000352 0.000500
St.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
H/Dir.(gon)
0.0000000
54.841828
172.262016
241.645929
284.531106
295.382535
318.512615
f _ :<6B
f a :<6B
0.000655
0.000902
0.001300
0.000156
0.000723
0.000904
0.000453
0.000459
0.000544
0.000300
0.000484
0.000895
0.000765
0.000466
St.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
H/Dir.(gon)
0.000000
54.839743
172.261715
241.645032
284.530697
295.382921
318.511249
f _ :<6B
f a :<6B
0.001470
0.000524
0.000942
0.000395
0.000473
0.000141
0.001174
0.000329
0.001024
0.000052
0.000124
0.000055
0.000544
0.000415
St.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
H/Dir.(gon)
0.000000
54.841145
172.264284
241.645972
284.532505
295.384465
318.513839
f _ :<6B
f a :<6B
0.000862
0.000011
0.000760
0.000322
0.000468
0.000818
0.000562
0.000496
0.000922
0.000159
0.000969
0.000480
0.000213
0.000826
66
St.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
H/Dir.(gon)
0.000000
54.839952
172.262789
241.645827
284.530609
295.383197
318.513393
fr_!:.6B
f(ac:.6B
0.000275
0.000594
0.000148
0.000121
0.000840
0.000138
0.000705
0.000229
0.000775
0.000088
0.000003
0.000774
0.000003
0.000993
St.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
H/Dir.(gon)
0.000000
54.841100
172.262254
241.645033
284.531250
295.383176
318.512147
f _ :.6B
f a :.6B
0.000230
0.001059
0.000177
0.000167
0.000306
0.000622
0.000037
0.000522
0.001160
0.000455
0.000088
0.000149
0.000123
0.000055
St.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
H/Dir.(gon)
0.000000
54.840622
172.262586
241.645766
284.533069
295.383199
318.512078
f _ :.6B
f a :.6B
0.000796
0.000446
0.000872
0.000461
0.001098
0.000381
0.001132
0.000467
0.000167
0.000532
0.000811
0.000869
0.000918
0.000028
St.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
H/Dir.(gon)
0.000000
54.841233
172.263880
241.645783
284.532564
295.383289
318.514380
fr_!:.6B
f(ac:.6B
0.001199
0.000238
0.000019
0.000847
0.000188
0.000694
0.000767
0.000060
0.000122
0.000170
0.000041
0.000261
0.000924
0.000043
42
67
St.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
H/Dir.(gon)
0.000000
54.838686
172.261443
241.645374
284.530552
295.381778
318.511475
St.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
H/Dir.(gon)
0.000000
54.841489
172.263665
241.645336
284.531567
295.383055
318.512017
St.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
H/Dir.(gon)
0.000000
54.840818
172.263416
241.645322
284.532013
295.383571
318.513029
fr_!:<6B
frac:<6B
0.000872
0.000714
0.000347
0.000815
0.000249
0.000134
0.000068
0.000156
0.000023
0.000436
0.000296
0.000100
0.000042
0.000253
fr_!:<6B
frac:<6B
0.000299
0.000918
0.000704
0.000395
0.000093
0.000028
0.000696
0.000338
0.000106
0.000136
0.000181
0.000194
0.000532
0.000178
f _ :<6B
f a :<6B
0.000459
0.000088
0.000296
0.000568
0.000379
0.000328
0.000157
0.000288
0.001659
0.000232
0.000132
0.000351
0.000379
0.000527
In order to position point K1 in the GPS network of Stuttgart Central using LPS observable of types horizontal
directions and vertical directions c , three known stations (Haussmanstr., Eduardpfeiffer and Liederhalle) of the
test network Stuttgart Central in Figure (4.1) are used. We proceed in three steps: The first step considers the
computation of the spatial distances, the second step is the computation of the coordinates of the unknown station,
and the final step is the computation of the threedimensional orientation parameters. In this section, the threedimensional resection method is considered with the aim of providing the threedimensional geocentric GPS coordinates in
the Global Reference Frame. The threedimensional orientation parameters of type astronomical longitude , astronomical latitude " , and the orientation unknown z in the horizontal plane and the deflection of the vertical can
be obtained as in J. L. Awange (1999) and E. Grafarend and J. L. Awange (2000).
The solution of Grunert equations is achieved using the algebraic computational techniques i.e. Grbner bases or
Multipolynomial resultant, the positionderivation step involves computing the desired threedimensional GPS Cartesian coordinates 5
$2!$% 8 of the unknown point ed in the Global Reference Frame. This is achieved by
analytically solving the threedimensional ranging problem (also known in German literature as "dreidimensionales
Bogenschnitt") as discussed in Section (321).
421 Experiment
Known GPS stations (Haussmanstr., Eduardpfeiffer and Liederhalle) of the test network Stuttgart Central in Figure
(4.1) together with K1 form the tetrahedron 5y% 8 in the Appendix A.2 in page (104). Algebraic computational
{
tools Grbner bases or Multipolynomial resultants discussed in Chapter 2 are used to determine the distances of the
tetrahedron.
68
Using the computed univariate polynomial (element of Grbner basis of the Ideal subset R[x p$? $? ) in Box (33a)
{
in Section (321, page 36), we determine the distances ^ ' $ b#'5+)R$%,.$ 8 etwen the unknown
station d and the known stations d expressed in (331) for the test network "Stuttgart Central" in
Figure (4.1). The unknown point in this case is the pillar K1 on top of the University building at Kepler Strasse 11.
Points ,
?3Gp.36+6656y 8 in Figure (3.1) correspond to the chosen known GPS stations Haussmannstr.,
{
Eduardpfeiffer, and Liederhalle. The distance from K1 to Haussmannstr. is designated ^ ' $ K1 to
Eduardpfeiffer ^
{ ' { $ while that of K1 to Liederhalle is designated ^ ' / The distances
between the known stations 5^ $^ $W^ 8 are computed from their respective GPS coordinates as indicated
{ {2
in Box (41) below. Their corresponding space angles
{0 { are computed from (329). In order to control
the computations, the Cartesian GPS coordinates of point K1 are also known. Box (41) below gives the complete
solution of the unknowns 5 $2 $? 8 from the computed Grbner basis of Boxes (33a) and (33b) in Section
{
(321, pages 36 and 37 respectively). The univariate polynomial in has eight roots, four of which are complex and
four real. Of the four real roots two are positives and two are negative. The desired distance is thus chosen
from the two positive roots with the help of prior information and substituted in  in Box (33b) in page (37) to give
two solutions of 9 , one of which is positive. Finally the obtained values of 596$2 8 are substituted in R Box
(33b) in page (37) to obtain the remaining indeterminate . Using this procedure, we have in Box (41) below that
{
^ '5+RP3/ +,+1J$0)63/t4.)R)
, 8 . Since ^ ' $ from apriori information we choose ^ '++PJ/tR,RR1 , leading to
^')+,RW/ ,RR3) , and ^ 'R,J/ ,R1RP+ . These values compare well with their real values depicted in Figure (4.1).
:<( [ FB {! :CJ [ XB { :u [ YXB { and spatial angles from (329) are given as
^h'
polynomial in Box (33a) in Section (321, page 36) as c0 c0 U W{ 'NPJ$ the computed
{
coefficients are
' J RR++,+,R,1+14PR1+,J)0k P+,R
d
,
' [ , +PR1+%4.)641+.)P+R+46k PJ)
'))%P ,,RR+,1,+4.)
pk PJ)
(
1 =' [ . P+R+PJ)64RR, ,R++Pk PRP+
='J ,+R1R3)64R,R+1+PR3)
pk [ PRP.
The solution to the univariate polynomial equation is then obtained from the Matlab command "roots" (e.g. D.
Hanselman and B. Littlefield 1997, p.146) as
' ccEcE {
9
N
' 6p6?:X0B
[ , P4R+4Rt,R+P4%+4,
[ ,P4R+4Rt,R+P4%+4,
,,PP4R4R++4R4Rtt,R,R++PP44%% ++44,, [
' +RPtR,R+4pJ)PR+1%
are
R 1,1 +,1+,4RR+R
[ R1,1 +,1+,4RR+R
R1,1 +,1+,4RR+
R1,1 +,1+,4RR+
69
The computation procedure using the B. Buchberger algorithm (Grbner bases) is summarized as follows:
Arrange the given polynomial equations using a chosen monomial order as in (346)
Compute the Grbner basis of this Ideal using either Mathematica or Maple softwares.
From the computed Grbner basis of the Ideal, solve the univariate polynomial for the desired roots using the
roots command of MATLAB.
Substitute the admissible value of the univariate polynomial solution in the other Grbner basis elements to
obtain the remaining variables.
Alternatively, the approach below based on Multipolynomial resultants technique can be used to solve the Grunert
equations.
(a)
The
F. Macaulay (1902) approach discussed in Section (2322) solves for the determinant of the matrix
leading
to a univariate polynomial in . The solution of the obtained univariate polynomial equation
expressed in Box (33c) in page (39) leads to similar results as those of Grbner basis i.e.
:XcB'
'
E'
9'
(b)
'
{ '
{ W{ E
[ 3 4.)RR4pR+PR1R,+,p{ $J { 'D3h4J)6RR.4)64PR{
Uc' [ )R)J)
P+4RR1+P+RP.)64
[ PJ PRP+%P +,+R1R3)64p%, 4R4pR.$cc'D+R,RR3 .4,P+4R1R
[ ,R%, 13 R3)
PR4 , )p4p+J ,R4P+,R4 RPR1p#
[ ,R%, 13 R3)
PR4 , [ )p4p+J ,R4P+,R4 RPR1p#
,R%, 13 R3)
PR4 %, + )p4p+J ,R4P+,R4 +P1R#
,R%, 13 R3)
PR4 %, + [ )p4p+J ,R4P+,R4 +P1R#
)RRPJ)
P++%, +4R44
[ )RRPJ)
P++%, +4R+4+4
)
R, 3t,+RP+% J)
%
[ )
R, 3t,+RP+% J)
R
++PJtR,+4J)
P++R1J$ [ ,46RJ +R
P ,R41R1RR1
,.t,1RP4p14R4pP+R,pJ$ [ 4)+)R RP+PR% .4)PRR++4
R
The B. Sturmfels (1998) approach discussed in Section (2322) using the Jacobian determinant solves the
determinant of the 11 matrix and leads to a univariate polynomial in . The solution of the obtained
univariate polynomial equation expressed in Box (33d) in page (41) leads to similar results as those of
Grbner basis i.e.
:CB'
E'
'
'
'
{ '
{ W{ U
[ )+ ++1J)
++J)
+,R,RR+{ $W { ')R RR,1,.)
+R1+%+RR{
' [ R%, +R+P+,+R, ,RPPR14
[ P3 P+PJ)p4,+% .4,1RR+R4 +1.$ ')p4W)R)
+J R++,R,R4+4
[ ,+R, 1J ++J)P4PRR1 )64p.t,4pP+,+++R #
[ ,+R, 1J ++J)P4PRR1 [ )64p.t,4pP+,+++R #
,+R, 1J ++J)P4RP%1 )64+.t,4pP,R++ #
,+R, 1J ++J)P4RP%1 [ )64+.t,4pP,R++ #
)6+PJ)
PRR, 4p++4R4
[ )6+PJ)
PRR, 4pR44
)+%, 3t,R+PR .)R
[ )+%, 3t,R+PR .)
% %
RP3 +,+4p3)
PRp+.$ [ ,R4J %
P ,+46+11R+1
,J ,R1RP414+4pPR+RR, 3$ [ 4)R)+ +PRP+% 4.)
P+R+
%
70
The computed distances from F. Macaulay (1902) and B. Sturmfels (1998) above tallies. The required solutions
5
9p$J { $J 8 obtained from Grbner basis computation and those of Multipolynomial resultants are the same {i.e
)
+,%3t,+J)R$R,.t,1RP+J$+RP3 +,+1 } respectively.
For each observational data sets 011 in Tables (4.2)(4.13), distances are obtained using either Grbner basis or
Multipolynomial resultant techniques as illustrated above. The results of the computed distances for the closed form
solutions are presented in Table (4.14) of Section (441). The computed distances are used with the help of Grbner
basis approach to determine the position of K1 for each observational data set 011in Tables (4.2)(4.13) as discussed
in Section (321, page 43). The results for the computed position of K1 for the closed form approach are presented
in Section (442). For the orientation elements we refer to J. L. Awange (1999) and E. Grafarend and J. L. Awange
(2000).
43
Overdetermined solution
In the preceding sections, only three known points were required to solve the closed form threedimension resection
problem for position and orientation of the unknown point K1. If superfluous observations are available made possible by the availability of several known points as in the case of the test network Stuttgart Central, the closed
form threedimensional resection procedure gives way to the overdetermined threedimension resection case. In this
case therefore, all the known GPS network stations (Haussmanstr., Eduardpfeiffer, Lindenmuseum, Liederhalle, Dach
LVM, Dach FH, and Schlossplatz) of the test network Stuttgart Central in Figure (4.1) are used.
431 Experiment
Using the observation data in Tables (4.2)(4.13), we proceed in six steps as follows:
Step 1 (construction of minimal combinatorial subsets for determination of distances):
From (226) in page (13 ), 35 minimal combinatorials are formed for the test network Stuttgart Central and
are as presented by the 35 combinatorial simplexes in Appendix A.2 (page 104). For each minimal combinatorial
simplex, the distances are computed from the univariate polynomials obtained using either Grbner basis or
Multipolynomial resultants algorithms and presented in Boxes (33a, page 36), (33c, page 39) or (33d, page
41) in Chapter 3. The admissible solution from the univariate polynomials are substituted into other polynomials
(as explained in Section 321 in page 31 and Section 421 in page 67) to get the remaining two distances. Each
combinatorial minimal subset results in distances thus giving rise to a total of :XsRB)P+ distances which
we consider in the subsequent steps as pseudoobservations. The computed distances ^ link the known points
 #')R$
0$74 to the unknown point (K1) in Figure (4.1).
R
^
U ' {
^
^ R
^ {
^ R
{
^{
{
^
{
(42)
^ {
' {
^ {
^
{
^
{
^ {
{
^
{
71
^ {
y
{
{
{
{
{
{
(43)
HR{ H pH
H R H { H
H R H H{
H {
P
P
P
P
P
H pFHW  P
P
P
P
P
P
HWpF H p{ X HWpF P
W
H
p
H
p
H
{
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Ha{ P
P
P
P
P U
P
P
P
P Ha{ P
P
P
P
' P
(44)
P
P
P
P
P Ha{ P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P H _{ P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P H_{ P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P H_{
H{ HW X HW %p
HWX% H{ F HWX%p '
H 2R H ? X H{
(45)
56R#+6 5 H { H { H { H { H { H { H { H { H { 8
Y
and
in (45) being the Jacobi matrix of the partial derivatives of the distance equations
{
^ { ':C { [ B { :C { [ B { :F { [ B {
^ {{ ':C [ { B { :C [ { B { :F [ { B {
(46)
^ { ':C [ B { :C [ B { :F [ B {
connecting the known GPS points d #5+)R$%,.$ 8 with respect to the known coordinates 5 $2 $7 68 $
{ 5 { $2 { $% { 8 and 5
$2 $7 8 of the GPS stations involved in the minimal combinatorial set. The variancecovariance matrix computed above is obtained for every combinatorial subset. Finally we obtained the variancecovariance matrix from (270) in Chapter 2 page (24).
Step 3 (rigorous adjustment of the combinatorial solution points in a polyhedron):
Once the )
P combinatorial solution points in a polyhedron have been obtained in step 1, they are finally adjusted using the linear GaussMarkov model (21), page 7) with the dispersion matrix obtained via the error
propagation law or variancecovariance propagation in step 2. Expressing each of the 105 pseudoobservation
distances as
^ N
' ^
#Y5)R$,J$23$3$%.$1J$%4 8 $uy5+)R$%,.$J$W$J$21J$74$J
0
$2+ 8 $
and placing the pseudoobservation distances ^ in the vector of observation , the coefficients
of the unknown
seven distances ^ of the test network Stuttgart Central forming the coefficient matrix and comprising the
vector of unknowns ^ , the adjusted solution is obtained via (24) and the dispersion of the estimated parameters
through (25) in Chapter 2 page (8).
72
B { C: [ =
B { u: [ c B { [ ^ {
R cgt':<s [
{ gt':< { [
B { C: { [ =
B { u: { [ c B { [ ^ { {
gt':< [
B { :C [ =
B { :u [ c B { [ ^ {
(47)
where ^ #5+)+$,J$2 8 r') are the distances between known GPS stations d #5+)+$,.$ 8 of the test
network Stuttgart Central and the unknown GPS point d for first combination set ' ) . With (277)
and (268) in pages (25 and 24 respectively) we have the Jacobi matrices as
U ' {
(48)
and
^
' {
^
{
{
{
{
{
{
+
{
{ {
{
(49)
'
H{
H
H
H
H{
H
H
H
H{
44. RESULTS
73
H {
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
H R R H H R{ G HH R G PP
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
R
H
H
{
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
p
{
P
P
P
H
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
{
P
P
P
P
H
P
P
R
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
H
{
P
P
P
P
P
P
(410)
' P
P
P
P
P
P
H
{
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P H{ P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P H{ P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P H{ P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P H{ P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P H{
on the right hand side of (410) given by (44) in page (71). The variancecovariance
with the @ elements of
matrix computed as explained above is obtained for every combinatorial set ')R$0
0$+ . Finally we obtained the
dispersion matrix from (270) in Chapter 2 page (24).
Step 6 (rigorous adjustment of the combinatorial solution points in a polyhedron):
For each of the 35 computed coordinates of point K1 in Figure (4.1) in step 4, we write the observation equations
as
'
F
$
+
5
+
)
$
J
,
2
$
J
$
3
%
$
.
2
$
3
1
%
$
.
4
J
$
0
2
$
44
Results
441 Distances
Presented in Table (4.14) are the results of the computed closed form threedimensional resection distances from K1
to Haussmanstr. :Xy gh'L^ B , K1Eduardpfeiffer :Xy
K1Liederhalle :Xy gh' ^ B (e.g. tetrahedron
{ gh' ^ f{ B ^ and
442
Position
The obtained position of station K1 from the 11 sets under study are presented in Tables (4.18) and (4.19). Set 0* indicate the results of the theoretical set. Since the value of K1 is known (e.g. Table (4.1), the deviations 5pf($fr!$f 8
of the computed positions from their real values are computed for both the closed form threedimensional resection
and the overdetermined threedimensional resection for each observational data set and are plotted as in Figure (4.2).
Figure (4.2) indicates the results of the overdetermined threedimension resection for the test network Stuttgart Central computed from the GaussJacobi algorithm to be better than those computed from closed form procedures. The
74
rootmeansquare errors are computed from (25) in Chapter 2 page (8). Figures (4.3)(4.8) illustrates the plotted
threedimensional positional scatter of the 35 minimal combinatorial subsets (indicated by doted points ( )) around
for the adjusted value of position indicated by a star ( ). The plot is done for each observational data set in Tables
(4.3) to (4.13).
Table 4.14: Distances computed by Grbner basis or Multipolynomial resultants
set no.
^ :CB
^ { :<B
^ :<B f^ :CB f^ { :CB f^ :CB
0*
1324.2380 542.2609 430.5286
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
1
1324.2420 542.2613 430.5247 0.0040
0.0004
0.0039
2
1324.2479 542.2707 430.5138 0.0099
0.0098
0.0148
3
1324.2412 542.2615 430.5247 0.0032
0.0006
0.0039
4
1324.2342 542.2588 430.5330
0.0038
0.0021
0.0043
5
1324.2340 542.2626 430.5313
0.0040
0.0017
0.0027
6
1324.2442 542.2664 430.5193 0.0063
0.0055
0.0093
7
1324.2453 542.2540 430.5241 0.0073
0.0069
0.0045
8
1324.2376 542.2585 430.5301
0.0003
0.0024
0.0015
9
1324.2382 542.2560 430.5307 0.0002
0.0049
0.0021
10
1324.2369 542.2652 430.5276
0.0011
0.0043
0.0010
11
1324.2375 542.2594 430.5299
0.0005
0.0015
0.0013
^ :<B
1324.2394
1324.2387
1324.2381
1324.2363
1324.2396
1324.2378
1324.2368
1324.2388
1324.2393
1324.2337
1324.2375
^ { C: B
542.2598
542.2606
542.2604
542.2545
542.2611
542.2584
542.2558
542.2575
542.2646
542.2598
542.2573
^ C: B
364.9782
364.9801
364.9791
364.9782
364.9779
364.9791
364.9790
364.9779
364.9794
364.9832
364.9787
^ :<B
^ :<B
^ :<B
^ :CB
430.5281
430.5274
430.5267
430.5355
430.5259
430.5300
430.5328
430.5324
430.5232
430.5350
430.5326
400.5834
400.5818
400.5847
400.5931
400.5834
400.5868
400.5857
400.5845
400.5770
400.5904
400.5884
269.2303
269.2292
269.2296
269.2385
269.2306
269.2320
269.2345
269.2342
269.2265
269.2346
269.2344
566.8641
566.8635
566.8632
566.8664
566.8658
566.8637
566.8644
566.8664
566.8623
566.8608
566.8650
44. RESULTS
75
Table 4.17: Deviations of distances in Table (4.15) from values in Table (4.2)
set no. f^ :<B
f^ { :<B f^ :<B f^ :CB f^ :CB fr^ :CB fr^ :<B
1
0.0014
0.0011
0.0015
0.0005
0.0002
0.0006
0.0006
2
0.0007
0.0003
0.0004
0.0012
0.0019
0.0017
0.0000
3
0.0002
0.0005
0.0006
0.0019
 0.0010
0.0013
0.0004
4
0.0017
0.0064
0.0015
0.0069
0.0094
0.0075
0.0028
5
0.0016
0.0002
0.0018
0.0027
0.0003
0.0003
0.0023
6
0.0002
0.0025
0.0006
0.0014
0.0031
0.0011
0.0002
7
0.0012
0.0051
0.0007
0.0042
0.0020
0.0035
0.0009
8
0.0009
0.0034
0.0018
0.0037
0.0008
0.0033
0.0028
9
0.0013
0.0037
0.0003
0.0054
0.0067
0.0044
0.0013
10
0.0042
0.0011
0.0035
0.0063
0.0067
0.0037
0.0027
11
0.0004
0.0036
0.0010
0.0040
0.0047
0.0034
0.0015
Table 4.18: K1 computed by Grbner basis or Multipolynomial resultants
Set No.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
b:<B
s:CB
d:CB
f(b:CB
f(s:<B
f=:<B
4157066.1116
4157066.1166
4157066.1220
4157066.1105
4157066.1045
4157066.1068
4157066.1149
4157066.1074
4157066.1099
4157066.1084
4157066.1138
4157066.1107
671429.6655
671429.6625
671429.6586
671429.6622
671429.6678
671429.6688
671429.6606
671429.6569
671429.6653
671429.6642
671429.6674
671429.6657
4774879.3704
4774879.3720
4774879.3599
4774879.3661
4774879.3688
4774879.3658
4774879.3614
4774879.3708
4774879.3724
4774879.3740
4774879.3673
4774879.3721
0
0.0050
0.0104
0.0011
0.0071
0.0048
0.0033
0.0042
0.0017
0.0032
0.0022
0.0009
0
0.0030
0.0069
0.0033
0.0023
0.0033
0.0049
0.0086
0.0002
0.0013
0.0019
0.0002
0
0.0016
0.0105
0.0043
0.0016
0.0046
0.0090
0.0004
0.0020
0.0036
0.0031
0.0017
76
x 10
Deviation in X(m)
10
12
10
6
7
Experiment No.
10
11
10
11
x 10
Deviation in Y(m)
12
6
7
Experiment No.
x 10
10
Deviation in Z(m)
6
7
Experiment No.
10
11
Figure 4.2: Deviation of computed position of station K1 in Tables (4.18) and (4.20) from the real value in Table (4.1)
44. RESULTS
77
3dplot of the scatter of the combinatorial solutions around the adjusted value(set1)
0.08
0.078
Z(m)+4774879.3(m)
0.076
0.074
0.072
0.07
0.068
0.066
0.064
5
4.5
0.02
0.018
4
x 10
0.016
0.014
3.5
0.012
0.01
3
Y(m)+671429.66(m)
0.008
X(m)+4157066.1(m)
3dplot of the scatter of the combinatorial solutions around the adjusted value(set2)
0.085
Z(m)+4774879.3(m)
0.08
0.075
0.07
0.065
0.06
8
7
3
x 10
0.03
0.025
0.02
0.015
5
0.01
Y(m)+671429.66(m)
0.005
X(m)+4157066.1(m)
Figure 4.3: Scatter of combinatorial solutions for data sets 1 and 2 in Tables (4.3) and (4.4)
78
3dplot of the scatter of the combinatorial solutions around the adjusted value(set3)
0.09
Z(m)+4774879.3(m)
0.085
0.08
0.075
0.07
0.065
0.06
0.055
8
7
0.025
6
0.02
x 10
0.015
5
0.01
0.005
3
Y(m)+671429.66(m)
X(m)+4157066.1(m)
3dplot of the scatter of the combinatorial solutions around the adjusted value(set4)
0.085
Z(m)+4774879.3(m)
0.08
0.075
0.07
0.065
0.06
7
6.5
20
6
3
x 10
15
5.5
10
5
5
4.5
Y(m)+671429.66(m)
0
4
x 10
X(m)+4157066.1(m)
Figure 4.4: Scatter of combinatorial solutions for data sets 3 and 4 in Tables (4.5) and (4.6)
44. RESULTS
79
3dplot of the scatter of the combinatorial solutions around the adjusted value(set5)
0.085
0.08
Z(m)+4774879.3(m)
0.075
0.07
0.065
0.06
0.055
0.05
0.045
6
5
0.03
4
0.02
x 10
0.01
3
0
0.01
1
Y(m)+671429.66(m)
0.02
X(m)+4157066.1(m)
3dplot of the scatter of the combinatorial solutions around the adjusted value(set6)
0.095
0.09
Z(m)+4774879.3(m)
0.085
0.08
0.075
0.07
0.065
0.06
0.055
10
8
3
x 10
0.04
0.03
6
0.02
4
Y(m)+671429.66(m)
0.01
2
X(m)+4157066.1(m)
Figure 4.5: Scatter of combinatorial solutions for data sets 5 and 6 in Tables (4.7) and (4.8)
80
3dplot of the scatter of the combinatorial solutions around the adjusted value(set7)
0.085
Z(m)+4774879.3(m)
0.08
0.075
0.07
0.065
0.06
7.5
7
0.02
6.5
x 10
0.015
6
0.01
5.5
5
Y(m)+671429.66(m)
0.005
X(m)+4157066.1(m)
3dplot of the scatter of the combinatorial solutions around the adjusted value(set8)
0.085
Z(m)+4774879.3(m)
0.08
0.075
0.07
0.065
0.06
6
5
3
x 10
0.02
0.015
4
0.01
3
Y(m)+671429.66(m)
0.005
2
X(m)+4157066.1(m)
Figure 4.6: Scatter of combinatorial solutions for data sets 7 and 8 in Tables (4.9) and (4.10)
44. RESULTS
81
3dplot of the scatter of the combinatorial solutions around the adjusted value(set9)
0.075
0.074
Z(m)+4774879.3(m)
0.073
0.072
0.071
0.07
0.069
0.068
0.067
5.4
5.2
0.014
0.013
5
3
x 10
0.012
4.8
0.011
0.01
4.6
0.009
4.4
Y(m)+671429.66(m)
0.008
X(m)+4157066.1(m)
3dplot of the scatter of the combinatorial solutions around the adjusted value(set10)
0.09
Z(m)+4774879.3(m)
0.085
0.08
0.075
0.07
0.065
0.06
0.055
0.012
0.011
0.025
0.02
0.01
0.015
0.009
Y(m)+671429.66(m)
0.01
0.008
0.005
X(m)+4157066.1(m)
Figure 4.7: Scatter of combinatorial solutions for data sets 9 and 10 in Tables (4.11) and (4.12)
82
3dplot of the scatter of the combinatorial solutions around the adjusted value(set11)
0.082
0.08
Z(m)+4774879.3(m)
0.078
0.076
0.074
0.072
0.07
0.068
0.066
0.064
7
6.5
0.025
6
3
x 10
0.02
5.5
0.015
5
0.01
4.5
Y(m)+671429.66(m)
0.005
X(m)+4157066.1(m)
Figure 4.8: Scatter of combinatorial solutions for data set 11 Table (4.13)
Chapter 5
Case studies
51
In order to relate a point on the Earths topographic surface to a point on the International Reference Ellipsoid
d{ we work with a bundle of half straight lines so called projection lines which depart from and intersect d{
either not at all or in two points. There is one projection line which is at minimum distance relating to . Figure
(5.1) is an illustration of such a Minimum Distance Mapping. Such an optimization problem is formulated by means
of the Lagrangean y:<p$2 $2 $?WB as in (3112) respectively (3113).
Figure 5.1: Minimum distance mapping of a point on the Earths topographic surface to a point on the International
Reference Ellipsoid d{
In the first case we represent the Euclidean distance between the points and in terms of Cartesian coordinates of
:<`$2!$%cB and of :< $2 { $? B . The Cartesian coordinates :< $2 { $? B of the projection point are unknown. The
constraint that the n is an element of the ellipsoidofrevolution d{ gh' 5K @R {R:<{ W{ B { [ {7{'
PJ$2 c~ 8 is substituted into the Lagrangean by means of the Lagrange multiplier W{ which is{ unknown,
too. :<
$2 $2 $?
B'5y:<p$2 $2 $?W6Bs'i#u 8 is the argument of the minimum of the constrained La{
{
grangean y:<6$? $2 $?WB . The result of the minimization procedure is presented by Lemma (51). (LC1) provides
{
the necessary conditions to constitute an extremum: The normal equations are of bilinear type. Products of the unknowns for instance 93$? 3$? W and squares of the unknowns, for instance { $? { $2 { appear. Finally the matrix
{
{
of second derivatives in (LC2) to be positive definite constitutes the necessary condition to obtain a minimum. For
tunately the matrix of second derivatives
is diagonal. The eigenvalues of are ' { '6
$ ' 6
and must be positive.
83
84
(LC1)
C: #B
:C#F#GB
(51)
:<#u#u#GB
:<#&%B :#
{'
(LC2)
:C $2 { $? $2 YB 'P(! i,j {1,2,3}
)
{' :#+* B,
gh'
) {
P
/..
P
) {
P
'
P
P
) {
(52)
(53)
"eigenvalues"
gh') { '
(54)
(55)
(56)
G'
:C [ B {! :X [ { B {! :F [ B {
convert 5 $2 $? 8 and 5
$$7 8
{
to <5 9E$2 8
>
G+=9' [[ { ' [
[
[
[
'
C: [ B { X: [ { B {
:< [ B { X: [> B {
(57)
(58)
(59)
The nonlinear (algebraic: bilinear) normal equations (LC1) of Minimum distance Mapping 5({ [
? d{ was solved
in Section (322) in a closed form by means of Grbner basis. The computed elements of the Grbner basis are
presented in Box (311) in page (50). Using (3116) and (3117) in page (51), the Lagrangean multiplier 3 and
ellipsoidal Cartesian coordinates 5
6$? $2 8 are computed. Finally, by means of Box (51) we convert the Cartesian
{
coordinates :C$2!$%cB85r{ and :<p$2 $? B&d{ to Gauss ellipsoidal coordinates 9U$2s$; .
85
Case study:
Let us adopt the World Geodetic Datum 2000 with the data r'N1R4pJ)R13 1+P+,p and &'N1++14J)R R1RPR of type semimajor axis and semiminor axis respectively, of the International Reference Ellipsoid (E. Grafarend and A. Ardalan
1999). Here we take advantage of given Cartesian coordinates of 21 points of the topographic surface of the Earth
presented in Table (5.1). From the algorithm of Box (311) in page (50), the first polynomial equation of fourth order
of the Grbner basis (3116) in page (51) is solved. We compute the coefficients from the input data Table (5.1) and
solve for 3 according to Table (5.2). With the admissible values 3 substituted in the computed Grbner basis (3117)
in page (51) we finally produce the values :< $2 $? B' :<$ > $;@B in Table (5.3). At this end Table (5.4) converts by
{
means of (51) the Cartesian coordinates :<`$2!$%cB and :<$ > $;@B to :#9U$@$A`B .
Table 5.1: Cartesian coordinates of topographic point (Baltic Sea Level Project)
Station
b:<B
s:CB
d:CB
Borkum (Ger)
3770667.9989 446076.4896 5107686.2085
Degerby (Fin)
2994064.9360 1112559.0570 5502241.3760
Furugrund (Swe) 2527022.8721 981957.2890 5753940.9920
Hamina (Fin)
2795471.2067 1435427.7930 5531682.2031
Hanko (Fin)
2959210.9709 1254679.1202 5490594.4410
Helgoland (Ger)
3706044.9443 513713.2151 5148193.4472
Helsinki (Fin)
2885137.3909 1342710.2301 5509039.1190
Kemi (Fin)
2397071.5771 1093330.3129 5789108.4470
Klagshamn (Swe)
3527585.7675 807513.8946 5234549.7020
Klaipeda (Lit)
3353590.2428 1302063.0141 5249159.4123
List/Sylt (Ger)
3625339.9221 537853.8704 5202539.0255
Molas (Lit)
3358793.3811 1294907.4149 5247584.4010
Mntyluoto (Fin)
2831096.7193 1113102.7637 5587165.0458
Raahe (Fin)
2494035.0244 1131370.9936 5740955.4096
Ratan (Swe)
2620087.6160 1000008.2649 5709322.5771
Spikarna (Swe)
2828573.4638 893623.7288 5627447.0693
Stockholm (Swe)
3101008.8620 1013021.0372 5462373.3830
Ustka (Pol)
3545014.3300 1073939.7720 5174949.9470
Vaasa (Fin)
2691307.2541 1063691.5238 5664806.3799
Visby (Swe)
3249304.4375 1073624.8912 5364363.0732
lands N. U. (Swe) 3295551.5710 1012564.9063 5348113.6687
86
2.3309099e+22
1.142213e+22
1.720998e+22
8.871288e+21
1.308070e+22
2.275210e+22
1.272935e+22
1.373946e+22
1.981047e+22
2.755981e+22
2.330047e+22
1.538357e+22
1.117760e+22
1.124559e+22
1.200556e+22
1.427443e+22
1.836471e+22
1.772332e+22
1.012020e+22
1.427711e+22
1.644250e+22
$U
p$U { $ $U7
1.334253e+41
1.3351890e+41
1.335813e+41
1.335264e+41
1.335160e+41
1.334345e+41
1.335205e+41
1.335906e+41
1.334546e+41
1.334574e+41
1.334469e+41
1.334580e+41
1.335399e+41
1.335785e+41
1.335704e+41
1.335496e+41
1.335087e+41
1.334410e+41
1.335593e+41
1.334856e+41
1.334815e+41
1.351627e+55
1.352005e+55
1.352259e+55
1.352035e+55
1.351993e+55
1.351665e+55
1.352012e+55
1.352296e+55
1.351746e+55
1.351758e+55
1.351715e+55
1.351759e+55
1.352090e+55
1.352246e+55
1.352214e+55
1.352130e+55
1.351965e+55
1.351690e+55
1.352168e+55
1.351870e+55
1.351854e+55
4.38e+68
4.38e+68
4.38e+68
4.38e+68
4.38e+68
4.38e+68
4.38e+68
4.38e+68
4.38e+68
4.38e+68
4.38e+68
4.38e+68
4.38e+68
4.38e+68
4.38e+68
4.38e+68
4.38e+68
4.38e+68
4.38e+68
4.38e+68
4.38e+68
7
4.44e+81
4.44e+81
4.44e+81
4.44e+81
4.44e+81
4.44e+81
4.44e+81
4.441e+81
4.44e+81
4.44e+81
4.44e+81
4.44e+81
4.44e+81
4.44e+81
4.44e+81
4.44e+81
4.44e+81
4.44e+81
4.44e+81
4.44e+81
4.44e+81
Table 5.3: Computed Cartesian coordinates :<p$2 $? BY':<$ > $;@B and Lagrange multiplier 3
Station
:CB
{ :<B { :<B
:< { B
Borkum
3770641.3815 446073.3407 5107649.9100 1.746947e019
Degerby
2994054.5862 1112555.2111 5502222.2279 8.554612e020
Furugrund 2527009.7166 981952.1770 5753910.8356 1.288336e019
Hamina
2795463.7019 1435423.9394 5531667.2524 6.643801e020
Hanko
2959199.2560 1254674.1532 5490572.5584 9.797001e020
Helgoland
3706019.4100 513709.6757 5148157.7376 1.705084e019
Helsinki
2885126.2764 1342705.0575 5509017.7534 9.533532e020
Kemi
2397061.6153 1093325.7692 5789084.2263 1.028464e019
Klagshamn
3527564.6083 807509.0510 5234518.0924 1.484413e019
Klaipeda
3353562.2593 1302052.1493 5249115.3164 2.065021e019
List/Sylt
3625314.3442 537850.0757 5202502.0726 1.746017e019
Molas
3358777.7367 1294901.3835 5247559.7944 1.152676e019
Mntyluoto
2831087.1439 1113098.9988 5587146.0214 8.370165e020
Raahe
2494026.5401 1131367.1449 5740935.7483 8.418639e020
Ratan
2620078.1000 1000004.6329 5709301.7015 8.988111e020
Spikarna
2828561.2473 893619.8693 5627422.6007 1.068837e019
Stockholm
3100991.6259 1013015.4066 5462342.8173 1.375524e019
Ustka
3544995.3045 1073934.0083 5174921.9867 1.328158e019
Vaasa
2691299.0138 1063688.2670 5664788.9183 7.577249e020
Visby
3249290.3945 1073620.2512 5364339.7330 1.069551e019
lands N. U. 3295535.1675 1012559.8663 5348086.8692 1.231803e019
87
Table 5.4: Geodetic Coordinates computed from ellipsoidal Cartesian coordinates in closed form (Baltic Sea Level
Project)
Station
Longitude 9
Latitude
height
Borkum (Ger)
Degerby (Fin)
Furugrund (Swe)
Hamina (Fin)
Hanko (Fin)
Helgoland (Ger)
Helsinki (Fin)
Kemi (Fin)
Klagshamn (Swe)
Klaipeda (Lit)
List/Sylt (Ger)
Molas (Lit)
Mntyluoto (Fin)
Raahe (Fin)
Ratan (Swe)
Spikarna (Swe)
Stockholm (Swe)
Ustka (Pol)
Vaasa (Fin)
Visby (Swe)
lands N. U. (Swe)
52
6 44 48.5914
20 23 4.0906
21 14 6.9490
27 10 47.0690
22 58 35.4445
7 53 30.3480
24 57 24.2446
24 31 5.6737
12 53 37.1597
21 13 9.0156
8 26 19.7594
21 4 58.8931
21 27 47.7777
24 24 1.8197
20 53 25.2392
17 31 57.9060
18 5 27.2528
16 51 13.8751
21 33 55.9146
18 17 3.9292
17 4 46.8542
53 33 27.4808
60 1 52.8558
64 55 10.2131
60 33 52.9819
59 49 21.6459
54 10 29.3979
60 9 13.2416
65 40 27.7029
55 31 20.3311
55 45 16.5952
55 1 3.0992
55 43 47.2453
61 35 39.3552
64 38 46.8352
63 59 29.5936
62 21 48.7645
59 19 20.4054
54 35 15.6866
63 5 42.8394
57 38 21.3487
57 22 3.4508
45.122
22.103
33.296
17.167
25.313
44.042
24.633
26.581
38.345
53.344
45.101
29.776
21.628
21.757
23.228
27.620
35.539
34.307
19.581
27.632
31.823
:CB
7 N
' E D { p#')+$,J$2J$9
0$?
(510)
subject to
_ D 'G0 F
(511)
(512)
5?$7?$2 8 5G$2?$7 8 being coordinates of the same points in both systems and L , { L ,
@/.. has always been solved using least squares solution. We illustrate in this section how the seven parameters datum transformation C :CB of a nonoverdetermined and overdetermined cases can be solved by the use
of Grbner bases and GaussJacobi combinatorial algorithms respectively. First, we solve analytically for ,
D `@/ .. ad then use them to transform the coordinates of one system in order to obtain the corresponding transformed values in the other system. By making use of the skewsymmetric matrix H , the rotation matrix is expressed as
with
D
where 0
HK'
The rotation matrix D
@/..
[
P [
[ P
P
(513)
88
:IKB'
leading to
P
0K
[
#F= K
P
#u=K A$ J { :#LB`'
<K
with
0EL
P
#uO L
(514)
[
#uOL
)
P P$ J :NMB`'
P L
P
0+M
[
#F
M
P
LEM
L
#u
M
[ 0#uOL
#u=K
#uOLEM [ <K
#u
M
#u=K
#uOL
#u
M 0KEM
#u=K0EL
<K
#FOLE M
#u= K0#u
M <K
#FOL0#u
M [
#u=KEM 0KL
The Cardan angles can be obtained from the rotation matrix D
~@/ .. through:
K'KGY: {2 B7$QM'NGY: { B
[
L' GY:
B.6G+Y:
B
{2 { {
{2{ 2{
#u
M
EM
P
P
)
(515)
(516)
For parameterization using Euler angles we refer to E. Grafarend and J. L. Awange (2000). The properties of the rotation matrix D
@/.. expressed as in (512) have been examined by S. Zhang (1994) and shown to fulfill (511).
Equation (510) is now written for #')+$,J$2 using (512) as
[
)
) [
K
' ) [
)
[
[ )
(517)
[
with 5
$ $% 8 6 For three corresponding points in both systems, the minimum observation equations required
{
to solve the seven datum transformation parameter are expressed from (517) as:
gh'N [ 0 [ [ 0 7 'NP
{ gt'N 7 [ J 3 [ [ 'KP
gt' [ 90%s 0! [ . .0 [
'P
(518)
6ygh'N9 { [ 90 { 9
0 { [ { [ 0 { 7 { 'NP $
p
gt'N907 { 90 { [ 90J { { [ { [ { 'KP
R Gygt'R [
gh'N [
{
gt' { [
 gt' [
6c'N9%s [ 909
p E'K907s{ { 7 { { [
pE' [ 07@ 90
' [ 7 { {
900 [
90J {{
! [
{2 [
with
7tc'N [ 
J { [ 00 {
0. { [ 0 { [
7J .0
7 { . {
7
{ {
[
[ {2
(519)
6#%$u5+)R$%,.$ 8 $2#'b
+
hc'N [ 
The reduced Grbner basis of (519) is then obtained using Mathematica 3.0 Software by using the command GroebnerBasis[{ +$% $ p$%p },{6$2$%6$2 }, {$p$2 }] as explained in Chapter 2, Section (2321). This gives only the
{
element of Grbner basis in which the variables $6$ have been eliminated and only the scale factor left. The
scale parameter is then given by the following univariate polynomial of order four:
89
W { { J%9 'P
a':<s d {
` { s [ ` { 9 [ s { 9 ! { { [ {2 = { { s 9 { ! { { [
{ 9 { ! { { { s { { {2 { !{ B { {2
a ':C
s
[ 0 s [ @ s d { [ ` { @ !
{ s { { { ! { J{ d { { { [{ 0 { { {2{ { ! { [ { { ={ { { 9{ 0 { { s { { { {2 [
{2{ s { { { {
` { { { [ { { { [ {2 { { { { { [ { = { { [ ` { { {
{2 { { { { { { ` { { { {2 { [ { { {2 [ { { { B
9 0
! [
s 9 0 s ! [ 0 !
a ':CJ { {
{ { { { {[ 7{ { { { {2 {2[ { { { { [ { {2 { ` { { { {2 {2 { d { { [ {{ { ( { { { {{ { { { {
{ { { { { {2 [ { { { [ { { { [ { { {2 [ { { {
{ {2 { { { { [ { { {2 [ { { { [ { { { { {2 {
{ { { [ { { { {2 { { { { {2 [ { { { { { { [
{ { { B
a ': [
7{ [ { [ { [
{ { { { { { { { { { { [ { { { {2 { [ { { { { { { { {2 { {{ [ {{ { { { { [
7{ { { { { { [ { { { { { {2 { { {2 [ { { { [ { { { [
{ { { { { { { { {2 { 7{ { { { { B
'N.
[ . 7{ { 0 [ { J [ J
7{ 0 0
[
{ { { { { { { {2 { { { {2 { { { 2{ { { { {
Once the admissible value of scale parameter has been chosen amongst the four roots above as ~ in Box (53),
the elements of the skew symmetric matrix H can then be obtained via the linear functions in Box (54).
Box 54 (Linear functions for computing the parameters of the skewsymmetric matrix H ):
f(a)=(x s 9 ! [ 0 { s ! [ J 0
[ J W{ 9 ! 0 { s
{ s
.
{ 909 { { . {{ 0
{ { J { 0{
! { { [ { J 0 { 9 { { [ {
{
{ 9s{ { J { { W{ 9 {! {
W { { { { [ { W{ { { { B? : [ { { [ { {
W{ [ [ d { [ { ` {
W { { { { [ { { { { [ { { { [ { 7{ { { { W{ ` { { { W{ d { { { { W{{ { {B
f(b)=(b [ [ [
{ W{ { {{ [ W{ { { { { { { { { W { { { [ { { { { { { W{ { { {
{ { [ { W{ { [ { W{ { { { { B? : [ { { [ { {
W{ = { { { [ { [ 7{
{ { { { W{ ` {{ { [ W{ { { { { { { { ={ { { [ 7{ { { { [ { { { B {
f(c)=(b [ [ W{ [ W{ BG
: [ { { [ { { { { { { { [ { { { { { { { [ { {
W{ { { [ { [ { B
Substituting the skew symmetric matrix H in (510) gives the rotation matrix D
from which the Cardan rotation
angles are deduced from (516) in Box (52). The translation elements can then be computed by substituting the
{
scale parameter and the rotation matrix D
in (510). Three sets of translation parameters are then obtained for the
90
{
'
p
p
3 {
 {
p

p

(520)
and
0{ {
{
0
(521)
p p
0
represents the partial derivative of (518) with respect 56 $2 $? $ $% $? $2 $% $2 $2 8 .
where the doted points in
of the vector of observations and with (520) and (521) forming
' { , the
{ disper{
From the dispersion
sion matrix
is then obtained from (268). Finally we obtained the dispersion matrix from (270) in Chapter 2
{
J
'
J
p
{
{
{
p
{
{
{
{
page (24).
Case Study:
We consider Cartesian coordinates of seven stations given in the Local and Global Reference Systems (WGS 84) as in
Tables (5.5) and (5.6). Desired are the seven parameters of datum transformation. Using the Grbner bases algorithm,
we obtain the 7transformation parameters given in Table (5.7) which are used to transform the three points involved
in the computations from the Local Reference System (Table 5.5) to the Global Reference System (WGS 84, Table 5.6)
in Table (5.8).
91
Table 5.6:
Station Name
Solitude
Buoch Zeil
Hohenneuffen
Kuehlenberg
Ex Mergelaec
Ex Hof Asperg
Ex Kaisersbach
:<B
~:<B
d:CB
4157870.237
4149691.049
4173451.354
4177796.064
4137659.549
4146940.228
4139407.506
664818.678
688865.785
690369.375
643026.700
671837.337
666982.151
702700.227
4775416.524
4779096.588
4758594.075
4761228.899
4791592.531
4784324.099
4786016.645
Translation f=
643.0953
[m]
Translation fr
22.6163
[m]
Translation f
481.6023
[m]
Table 5.8: Transformed Cartesian coordinates of System A (Table 5.5) into System B (Table 5.6) using the 7datum
transformation parameters of Table (5.7) computed by Grbner basis
Site
:<B
~:<B
=:<B
System A: Solitude
4157222.5430 664789.3070 4774952.0990
System B
4157870.2370 664818.6780 4775416.5240
Transformed value
4157870.3070 664818.6742 4775416.5240
Residual
 0.0700
0.0038
0.0000
System A: Buoch Zeil
4149043.3360 688836.4430 4778632.1880
System B
4149691.0490 688865.7850 4779096.5880
Transformed value
4149691.1190 688865.7812 4779096.5880
Residual
 0.0700
0.0038
0.0000
System A: Hohenneuffen 4172803.5110 690340.0780 4758129.7010
System B
4173451.3540 690369.3750 4758594.0750
Transformed value
4173451.2141 690369.3826 4758594.0750
Residual
0.1399
0.0076
0.0000
Transformation parameters obtained in the overdetermined case by the GaussJacobi combinatorial algorithm are
presented in Table (5.9) and used to transform the Cartesian coordinates from the Local Reference System (Table 5.5)
to the Global Reference System (WGS 84, Table 5.6) as shown in Table (5.10). Table (5.11) gives for comparison
purposes the transformed values from the 7datum transformation parameters obtained via least squares solution. The
residuals from both GaussJacobi combinatorial algorithm and least squares solution are of the same magnitude. We
also compute the residual norm (square root of the sum of squares of residuals) and present them in Table (5.12). The
computed norm from the GaussJacobi combinatorial solution is somewhat better than those of the linearized least
squares solution. Figures (5.2) and (5.3) indicate the scatter of the computed 36 minimal combinatorial solutions of
92
scale (indicated by doted points ( )) around for the adjusted value indicated by a line ( [ ). Figures (5.3) indicate the
scatter of the computed 36 minimal combinatorial solutions of translation and rotation parameters (indicated by doted
points ( )) around the adjusted values indicated by a star ( ). The Figures clearly identifies the outlying combinations
from which the respective (suspected outlying points) points can be deduced.
Table 5.9: Computed 7parameter datum transformation using GaussJacobi combinatorial algorithm
Transformation parameter
Value
Rootmeansquare
unit
Scale [ )
4.92377597
0.350619414
[ppm]
Rotation } :C.B
0.98105498
0.040968549
[]
Rotation } :FB
0.68869774
0.047458707
[]
{
Rotation } :X0B
0.96671738
0.044697434
[]
Translation f(
639.9785
2.4280
[m]
Translation fr
68.1548
3.0123
[m]
Translation f
423.7320
2.7923
[m]
Table 5.10: Transformed Cartesian coordinates of System A (Table 5.5) into System B (Table 5.6) using the 7datum
transformation parameters of Table (5.9) computed by the GaussJacobi combinatorial algorithm
Site
b:CB
~:<B
=:<B
System A: Solitude
4157222.5430 664789.3070 4774952.0990
System B
4157870.2370 664818.6780 4775416.5240
Transformed value
4157870.1631 664818.5399 4775416.3843
Residual
0.0739
0.1381
0.1397
System A: Buoch Zeil
4149043.3360 688836.4430 4778632.1880
System B
4149691.0490 688865.7850 4779096.5880
Transformed value
4149691.0162 688865.8151 4779096.5785
Residual
0.0328
0.0301
0.0095
System A: Hohenneuffen 4172803.5110 690340.0780 4758129.7010
System B
4173451.3540 690369.3750 4758594.0750
Transformed value
4173451.3837 690369.4437 4758594.0770
Residual
0.0297
0.0687
0.0020
System A: Kuelenberg
4177148.3760 642997.6350 4760764.8000
System B
4177796.0640 643026.7000 4761228.8990
Transformed value
4177796.0394 643026.7347 4761228.9783
Residual
0.0246
0.0347
0.0793
System A: Ex Mergelaec
4137012.1900 671808.0290 4791128.2150
System B
4137659.5490 671837.3370 4791592.5310
Transformed value
4137659.6895 671837.3142 4791592.5458
Residual
0.1405
0.0228
0.0148
System A: Ex Hof Asperg 4146292.7290 666952.8870 4783859.8560
System B
4146940.2280 666982.1510 4784324.0990
Transformed value
4146940.2757 666982.1394 4784324.1589
Residual
0.0477
0.0116
0.0599
System A: Ex Keisersbach 4138759.9020 702670.7380 4785552.1960
System B
4139407.5060 702700.2270 4786016.6450
Transformed value
4139407.5733 702700.1935 4786016.6520
Residual
0.0673
0.0335
0.0070
93
Table 5.11: Transformed Cartesian coordinates of System A (Table 5.5) into System B (Table 5.6) using the 7datum
transformation parameters computed by Least Squares Solution
Site
b:<B
s:CB
d:CB
System A: Solitude
4157222.5430 664789.3070 4774952.0990
System B
4157870.2370 664818.6780 4775416.5240
Transformed value
4157870.1430 664818.5429 4775416.3838
Residual
0.0940
0.1351
0.1402
System A: Buoch Zeil
4149043.3360 688836.4430 4778632.1880
System B
4149691.0490 688865.7850 4779096.5880
Transformed value
4149690.9902 688865.8347 4779096.5743
Residual
0.0588
0.0497
0.0137
System A: Hohenneuffen 4172803.5110 690340.0780 4758129.7010
System B
4173451.3540 690369.3750 4758594.0750
Transformed value
4173451.3939 690369.4629 4758594.0831
Residual
0.0399
0.0879
0.0081
System A: Kuelenberg
4177148.3760 642997.6350 4760764.8000
System B
4177796.0640 643026.7000 4761228.8990
Transformed value
4177796.0438 643026.7220 4761228.9864
Residual
0.0202
0.0220
0.0874
System A: Ex Mergelaec
4137012.1900 671808.0290 4791128.2150
System B
4137659.5490 671837.3370 4791592.5310
Transformed value
4137659.6409 671837.3231 4791592.5365
Residual
0.0919
0.0139
0.0055
System A: Ex Hof Asperg 4146292.7290 666952.8870 4783859.8560
System B
4146940.2280 666982.1510 4784324.0990
Transformed value
4146940.2398 666982.1445 4784324.1536
Residual
0.0118
0.0065
0.0546
System A: Ex Keisersbach 4138759.9020 702670.7380 4785552.1960
System B
4139407.5060 702700.2270 4786016.6450
Transformed value
4139407.5354 702700.2229 4786016.6433
Residual
0.0294
0.0041
0.0017
Table 5.12: Computed residual norms
Method
:<B @:CB
Linearized Least Squares Solution
0.1541 0.1708
Nonlinear GaussJacobi Combinatorial 0.1859 0.1664
6
14
=:<B
0.1748
0.1725
x 10
12
10
Scale (ppm)
scatter in scale
Adjusted mean value
0
10
15
20
Combinatorial No.
25
30
35
Figure 5.2: Scatter of the computed 36 minimal combinatorial values of scale around the adjusted value
94
300
Z(m)+400(m)
200
100
0
100
600
200
150
500
400
100
300
50
200
0
100
50
0
100
100
150
200
200
Y(m)+60(m)
X(m)+600(m)
20
c(")
10
0
10
8
6
4
2
0
20
15
4
b(")
10
5
6
0
8
5
a(")
Figure 5.3: Scatter of the 36 computed translations and rotations around the adjusted values
Chapter 6
96
the scale parameter. The admissible value of the scale is readily obtained by solving the univariate polynomial and
restricting the scale to a positive real value s This eliminates the negative components of the roots and the
complex values. The admissible value of the scale parameter is chosen and substituted in the linear functions
that characterize the three elements of the skewsymmetric matrix ^ leading to the solution of the elements of the
rotation matrix D . The translation elements are then deduced from the transformation equation. The advantage of
using the Grbner bases algorithm is the fact that there exists no requirement for prior knowledge of the approximate
values of the 7transformation parameters as is usually the case.
The Grbner bases algorithm managed to solve the Minimum Distance Mapping problem and in so doing, enabling
the mapping of points from the topographical surface to the International Reference Ellipsoid of Revolution. The
univariate polynomial obtained was identical to that obtained by E. Grafarend and P. Lohse (1991). This implies
that the algebraic tools of Grbner bases and the Multipolynomial resultants can also be used to check the validity of
existing closed form procedures in Geodesy .
The GaussJacobi combinatorial algorithm highlighted one important fact while solving the overdetermined 7 parameter transformation problem; that the stochasticity of both systems involved can be taken into account. This has been
the bottleneck of the problem of 7datum transformation parameters.
In conclusion, the present study has contributed towards the solution of nonlinear GPS/LPS observations in Geodesy.
By testing the Grbner bases and the Multipolynomial resultants techniques on the selected geodetic problems and
case studies, the study has established that the methods are suitable tools to be applied in solving closed form problems in Geodesy. The only requirements is that the nonlinear geodetic observation equations have to be converted
into algebraic (polynomial) form. Besides the solution of nonlinear equations in closed form, the Grbner bases and
the Multipolynomial resultants approaches can be used to check the validity of the existing closed form procedures
in Geodesy. The study has further established that the GaussJacobi combinatorial algorithm offers an alternative
procedure to iterative and linearization approaches that normally require approximate starting values. With these advantages, the overdetermined problems of GPS pseudoranging, threedimensional resection and 7 parameter datum
transformation were solved. Besides, the GaussJacobi combinatorial algorithm takes into account the full information of the observations and parameter space via the nonlinear error propagation/variancecovariance propagation.
Appendices
Appendix A1:
Definitions
To enhance the understanding of the theory of Grbner bases presented in Chapter 2, the following definitions supplemented with examples will help in developing ideas that lead to the definition of the basis of an Ideal, in particular
the Standard Basis known as the Grbner basis of an Ideal in a polynomial ring.
Definition A1 (monomial):
A monomial is a multivariate product of the form
R
in the variables
$ 0$? U
{ ,J { 9 {
{{ ,R { {
V { , %
3p
with the variables
5 $? { ?$ $ 8
W{  'KP
{ { 2 'P
{ 2 'NP
$J { ~ $2
509$? { 2$ 8
W{
$2 { 2$ W{{ ?$ { ?$ { 2$ X
:C
:C
:C
:C9
[ B?{
[ B?{
[ {B{
[ B?{
[ +6B?{E'NP
[ B?{E'NP
[ { B { 'NP
[ B?{E'NP
with W $ $2y{R$2y[X being the position of the four GPS satellites, their ranges to the stationary receiver at
given by 5+R$ $2 $ 8 . The parameters :5++$%+$27 8 , 5
$% $2 8 , 5
$% $ 8 , 5 $ $ 8 , 5
++$ $2 $ 8 B
{
{ { {
{
are elements of the spherical cone that intersect at to give the coordinates 50 $2 $? 8 of the receiver and the
{
stationary receiver range bias The equations above can be expanded as follows
W{
{
W{
W{
[ ,0
[ ,
[ , {
[ ,
with the variables 5
9$? $?
{
W {{
{{
W{{
W{{
$23 8
[ ,R%0
[ ,R
[ ,R {
[ ,R
{ W {{ [[
{ W{ [
{ W{ [
{
,R7
,R
,R {
,R
[[ {{
[ {
[ {
{
{
{{
{
{ { 'P
{ { 'P
{{ {{ 'P
{ { 'P
, the other terms being known constants, then W W{ $?p$2W{ $? $?{ 2$ $2W{ $?W X
{ {
said to be a set of monomials in the variables 5
6$2 $? $?WR 8
{
97
,+0
,
, {
,
7{
{
7{{
7{
is
Example A3 (E. Grafarend and P. Lohse 1991, equation 1(3), p.93):
Consider equation 1(3) used to map the topographical surface point embedded into a threedimensional Euclidean space @ onto a (reference) ellipsoid of revolution subject to the constrain that the projection point is a
point on the (reference) ellipsoid of revolution. Equation 1(3) given by
[ C:
[ :X
[ :u
{W{
[ B
[ {B
[ B
7{0 W{{
7{
7 { {
{7
{{ [
'KP
' P
'NP
{67{E'KP
where :<$$7EB are known topographical coordinates from e.g. GPS, threedimensional resection e.t.c., 56$ 8 the
semimajor and semiminor axis respectively. Desired are the ellipsoidal Cartesian coordinates 50 'K$? ' > $? '\@
{
of the projected topographical point. 5
$? $2 $? R8 in this case are the variables whose monomials are given as
{
W { $2 $2 $?{ $? $2 $?W{ $? $2 X .
{ { {
'^]
{ R, { {
{{ ,+ { {
{ ,R
W{ .2U'P
W{ { U'KP
W{
2'P
in Example A1 in page 97 are multivariate polynomials with the first equation being a multivariate polynomial
in two variables 50p$2 8 and a linear combination of the monomials W { $29% $2W{ X The second equation is a
{ {
{
multivariate polynomial in two variables 5
$? 8 and a linear combination of the monomials W { $2 $?W{ $ X
{
{ {
while the third equation is a multivariate polynomial in two variables 5
$2 8 and a linear combination of the
monomials W W{ $? $?{ NX
{
{
{
{
[ ,R
[ ,R
[ ,R { 9
[ ,R 9
W {{ [
W{{ [
W{{ [
W{{ [
,+%
,+
,+ {
,+
{ {{
{ {
{ {
{
[ ,7
[ ,
[ , {
[ ,
[[ WW {{
[ W{
[ W{
,+0
,
, { W
, W
{
{
{{
{
7{
7{
7{{
7{
{
{
{{
{
{
{
{{
{
'KP
' P
K
' P
K
' P
K
presented in Example A2 are multivariate polynomials with each equation being a multivariate polynomial in four
variables 596$2 $? $?W 8 and a linear combination of the monomials W W{ $?9$?{ $2 $?W{ $? $2W{ $?3 X .
{ {
[ C:
[ :X
[ :u
{W{
[ B
[ {B
[ B
7{0W{{
7{7W'KP
7 { { 3'P
{7 'NP
{{ [ {67{E'KP
presented in Example A3 of page 98 are multivariate polynomials with the first equation being a multivariate polynomial in two variables 5
$? R8 and a linear combination of the monomials 5
$2 +8 . The second
equation is a multivariate polynomial in two variables 5 $? 8 and a linear combination of the monomials
{ in two variables 50 $23 8 and a linear combina5
{ $2 { 3 8 . The third equation is a multivariate polynomial
tion of the monomials 5 $? 3 8 , while the fourth equation is a multivariate polynomial in three variables
98
Having defined the terms monomial and polynomial above, we next define the term polynomial ring upon
which the Grbner basis is computed using the B. Buchberger algorithm. In computing the Grbner bases, one
computes the Grbner basis of an Ideal ( ` p$
0
? U ) which belongs to a Polynomial ring of the field . First
the term "ring" is defined in order to understand what the term "Polynomial ring" means. We begin by considering the
definition of linear Algebra. For literature in linear Algebra we refer to T. Becker and V. Weispfenning (1993 Chapter
1, pp.160, 1998).
Definition A3 (linear algebra):
Algebra can be defined as a set ^ of elements and a finite set a of operations. In linear algebra the elements
of the set ^ are vectors over the field of real numbers, while the set a is basically made up of two elements
of internal relation namely additive and multiplicative. An additional definition of the external relation
expounds on the term linear algebra as follows: A linear algebra over the field of real numbers consists of a
set b of objects, two internal relation elements (either "additive" or "multiplicative") and one external relation
as follows
:XPWpBE'(gcKgdb e
b ? b
:XP WpB { '(g L g e
b ? b6fb N ? b
:XPWpB '(g:M`gdb ^b ? b
Axiom
Additively
written
g Abelian
g group
Associativity
Identity
Inverse
my
Commutativity
m.
(additive identity,
neutral
g element)
g
g : [ B' o
(additive
g inverse)
g h 'th
Kk : $ihgnBk '(g k h
m) gUgn: k hk B j='
'
:#h j+B
(multiplicative
k gnk associativity)
g
m , g
d
)c'
(multiplicative identity,
neutral
element)
k gnkq
g
my
'sr
(multiplicative
inverse)
k gnk
kqg
m.
(additive commutativity,
Abelian axiom)
Multiplicatively
written
g Abelianglgroup
k
h \
' h
(multiplicative commutativity,
Abelian axiom)
with the triplet of axioms 5<m) $;md, $;my 8 or 5<m) $Amd, $;my 8 constituting the set of group axioms and 5<m.
the Abelian axioms. Examples of groups include
(a) The group of integer under addition.
(b) The group of nonzero rational number u under multiplication.
(c) The set of rotation about the origin in the Euclidean plane under the operation of composite function.
* With respect to the external relation L the following compatibility conditions are satisfied
D3: 1
'
distr.
w)
distr.
ws,
)c'
$ib
h 6g br$.7$;vg
L:C7$ B'(g
w)
gnk
gnk
g & g : k hBY'
gnk : hB&
':C! B
h '
:#hb?B
1stk multiplicative
k
g distributivity
g
k
ws,
$;m. 8
* With respect to the internal relation M (meet) the following conditions are satisfied
gnx
i$ hg $;j@8br$.gn
x
M: $ihB'(g
h
gnx
Axiom
Ass.
dist.
dist.
x{k gnx
k
gnx
k
w) n
g yk
x :$h j+BY
g'
k : x hB j
: h B (
j '
:#h jB
dist.
ws,
m)
w)
gU:
hB
j('
gnx
:$h
glx
gnx
:$x h j+gnB!'x
h x
: h B (
j '
j h j
g zy
gn x y
gnx
Comments
Associativity w.r.t
internal multiplication
jB
j
g x
: hgBYx':C! B h
h B&~Y'
:#hb?B
md,
m)
m)
my
m.
x
md,
Figure A1:
Ring
w)
Condition md, makes b a ring with identity while the inclusion of my makes the ring be known as the division
ring if every nonzero element of the xring has a multiplicative inverse. The ring becomes a commutative ring if it
has the commutative multiplicative m. . Examples of rings include:
* Field of real numbers , complex numbers C and rational numbers u . In particular, a ring becomes a field if
every non zero element of the ring has an inverse.
* Integers
100
In the present study, we will consider a ring to be commutative and to include identity element. The field will be
used in subsequent definition to refer he field of an arbitrary ring 5$PC@$PuO 8 Having defined a ring, we next
expound on the term Polynomial ring
Definition A5 (polynomial ring):
~ b , a univariate polynomial is formed by assigning
Let us consider a ring b . If we consider an indeterminate p8
coefficients b to the indeterminate and obtaining the summation over finite number of distinct integers.
Thus
:<BY'e R R $ R 6br$AK
P
R
{ <: 9B=' 2 $
+p:<9B'
and
then two binary operation addition and multiplication can be defined on these polynomials
; u2R$2
db .
A collection of polynomials with these additive and multiplicative rules forms a commutative ring with zero
element and identity 1. A univariate polynomial :<9B obtained by assigning elements belonging to the ring
b to the variable 5 8 is called a polynomial ring and is expressed as :<BY}
' b In general the entire collection
of all polynomials in 6$
0$? U with coefficients in the field that satisfy the definition of a ring above such
that the operations addition and multiplication can be carried out is called a polynomial ring. Designated &$
polynomial ring is represented by unknown variables over and is expressed as gh'
p$
0$? U
Its elements are polynomials known as univariate when 'i) and multivariate otherwise. To complete the
such that:
(a) Addition:
Example A7: Consider the equations of Example A1 in page 97. The three equations
W{ , J { 9 { {{  N
' P
W{{ ,R { { {  'P
W{ , % W{  'KP
9p$? { 2$ 7
{
{
{{
{
'NP
' P
N
' P
N
' P3
N
{
{
{
{
[ ,
[ ,
[ , {
[ ,
{{
{{
{{
{{
[ ,+%0
[ ,+
[ ,+ {
[ ,+
{ WW{{
{ W{
{ W{
{
[ ,7
[ ,
[ , {
[ ,
[[ WW {{
[ W{
[ W{
,RR
,R
,R {
,R
{
{
{{
{
{
{
{{
{
{
{
{{
{
The four equations are said to be polynomial elements of the polynomial ring in four variables
the field of real numbers expressed as gh'N $? $2 $? .
$? { 2$ 2$
over
[ <:
[ :C
[ :F
7{{
[ B
[ {B
[ B
{ W{{
7{093c'P
7 {0 { 3'NP
{ 3
'KP
{{ [ {7{E'PJ
The four equations are said to be polynomial elements of the polynomial ring in four variables
over the field of real numbers expressed as gh' 9$? $? $23
101
9$? { 2$ ?$ 3
In the case of univariate polynomials, the format of presentation is usually that of either ascending or descending orders
with respect to the power of the variable involved. The situation is however complicated in the case of multivariate
polynomials where an ordering system has to be defined. We mention here the three commonly used monomial
ordering systems namely; lexicographic ordering, graded lexicographic ordering and graded reverse lexicographic
ordering. First we define the monomial ordering before considering the three types of monomial ordering.
Definition A6 (monomial ordering):
U
A monomial ordering on 96$00$? U is any relation > on or equivalently any relation on the set R
U
satisfying the following conditions:
U
(a) is total (or linear) ordering on
U
(b) If K
L and M` , then K MpL M
U
(c) > is a well ordering on .
U
This condition is satisfied if and only if every strictly decreasing sequence in eventually terminates.
$K
U
U
L ' :$L6$
0$iL U B$;K!$iLK $ then KG{ L if in the vector difference K [ LNb $ the most left nonzero
entry is positive. For the same variable (e.g. ) this subsequently means R
largest) variable of a monomial and favours the largest power. Let K!$iL $ then K{ L if K&'
U
K L!' L m K' L! , and K{ LY$ in K [ L $ the most left non zero entry is positive.
As a second example, consider the polynomial ' ,W{ > [ R > @ > @+ [ > $ we have the graded
lexicographic order; ' [ R > @ ,W{ > [ > > @ > t@ .
K!$iL
U $
then
K P P
if
K&' K L!'
m K&+' L , and K{P P L , and in K [ L U the right most non zero entry is negative.
cographic. As a second example, consider the polynomial ' ,p{ > [ R > @ > @+ [ > , we have the
graded reverse lexicographic order: ',W{ > [ > @ [ > > @ > p@ .
L
' R R R
Definition A7
Multidegree of : Multideg ( )=nZ9:IK
in
$00 $2 U
P+B
R 'K
Leading coefficient of : LC ( )= [ D +<
fE D EE< (with coefficient 1)
Leading monomial of : LM ( )=
102
The definitions of polynomial ordering above have been adopted from D. Cox et. al. (1997 pp.5258). Most computer
algebra makes use of the lexicographic ordering (D. Cox et al. 1997 pp. 5657, J. H. Davenport et al. 1988 p. 72).
The present study restricts itself to lexicographic ordering.
103
Appendix A2:
Figure A2: Combinatorial simplexes for the for test network Stuttgart Central
104
Figure A3: Combinatorial simplexes for the for test network Stuttgart Central continues
105
Figure A4: Combinatorial simplexes for the for test network Stuttgart Central continues
106
Figure A5: Combinatorial simplexes for the for test network Stuttgart Central continues
107
Figure A6: Combinatorial simplexes for the test network Stuttgart Central continues
Appendix A3:
Error propagation
>
'*:I@B
where
> is a scalar valued observation and @ a random effect. Three cases can be
(= assumed to be known):
By Taylor series expansion we have
75 >
75 >
F
8 ':$ B { #: B?H{ p :C+By
Finally if @ is quasinormally distributed, we have from E. Grafarend and B. Schaffrin (1983, p.468) that
'}75:I@ [ BG 8 'NP and '}75:#@ [ B 8 'N { 'NRH leading to
{
F
H{ ' {+:$=pBGH{ { {+:$=pBGH
X: +B
108
Case 2
(= unknown, but known as a fixed effect approximation (this implies in E. Grafarend and B. Schaffrin
= )):
1983, p.470 that 'G
By Taylor series expansion we have
't
:$0 [ Bd3@ [
'\@ [ :$ [ 6B
:#@BY'N :# B :# B0:#@ [ =pB :# B:$= [ B
{P $: BI: @ [ =6BG{ { :$ B0:$= [ BG{
#: B:#@ [ =6B:#= [ B :X+B
we have
and
F
H{ ' {+:$6BGH{ ,R #: 6B?H{ :# [ pB { { :$0BGH R{ :#pBGH{ :$ [ 6BG{ p :CB
with the first and third terms (on the right hand side) being the right hand side terms of case 1 (cf. E. Grafarend and
B. Schaffrin 1983, p.470).
Case 3
7 5:@
8 WL
[ '\@ [
etc, the derivatives became random effects and cannot any longer be separated in 756 :$ B :I@ [ B 8 '
:$ B75:#@ [ B 8 etc. Consider
#: @ [ B { '#: @ [ 7<5 @ 8 B { L { ,JI: @ [ 7:5 @ 8 B L3
we have
8 >d[ 75 > 8 8 as
H{ 'N {+:$ BGH{ :$ B75:#@ [ 75<@ 8 BG 8
,R :#=B?Hi{ L {+:$=pB75:#@ [ 75<@ 8 B 8
{R:# B75:#@ [ 75<@ 8 BG 8 L3 {+:$ BGHi{ L {
{+:$ BGH i [ { {R:# B75:#@ [ 75<@ 8 B?{ 8 Hi{ p C: B
and with @
being quasinormally distributed, thus '75:I@
[ 75<@ 8 BG 8
' P
75 >
and
'75:#@ [
with the first and third terms (on the right hand side) being the right hand side terms of case 1 (cf. E. Grafarend and
B. Schaffrin 1983, p.470).
Appendix A4:
110
111
112
References
Aduol, F. W. O. (1989): Intergrierte geodtische Netzanalyse mit stochastischer Vorinformation ber Schwerefeld
und Referenzellipsoid, DGK, Reihe C, Heft Nr. 351.
Abel, J. S. and Chaffee, J. W. (1991): Existence and uniqueness of GPS solutions, IEEE Transactions on Aerospace
and Electronic Systems 27 (1991) 952956.
Ashkenazi V. and Grist, S. (1982): Intercomparisson of 3D geodetic network adjustment models, International
sypmosium on geodetic networks and computations of the I. A. G. Munich, August 31 to September 5, 1981.
Awange, L. J. (1999): Partial procrustes solution of the threedimensional orientation problem from GPS/LPS observations, Quo vadis geodesia...? Festschrift to E. W. Grafarend on the occasion of his 60th birthday, Eds. F.
Krumm and V. S. Schwarze, Report Nr. 1999.61
Awange L. J. and Grafarend, E. (2002). Algebraic solution of GPS pseudoranging equations, Journal of GPS
Solution, Volume 5(3), 2002.
Bajaj, C., Garity, T. and Waren, J. (1988): On the applications of multiequational resultants, Department of Computer Science, Purdue University, Technical Report CSDTR826, pp. 122, 1988.
Bancroft, S. (1985): An algebraic solution of the GPS equations, IEEE Transaction on Aerospace and Electronic
Systems AES21 (1985) 5659.
Bhr, H. G. (1988): A quadratic approach to the nonlinear treatment of nonredundant observations Manuscripta
Geodaetica, 13 (1988) 191197.
Bhr, H. G. (1991): Einfach berbestimmtes ebenes Einschneiden, differentialgeometrisch analysiert, Zeitschrift fr
Vermessungswesen 116 (1991) 545552.
Bartelme, N. and Meissl, P. (1975): Ein einfaches, rasches und numerisch stabiles Verfahren zur Bestimmung des
krzesten Abstandes eines Punktes von einem sphroidischen Rotationsellipsoid, Allgemeine VermessungsNachrichten 82 (1975) 436439.
Becker, T. and Weispfenning, V. (1993): Grbner bases. A computational approach to commutative algebra. Graduate Text in Mathematics 141, SpringerVerlag, New York 1993.
Becker, T. and Weispfenning, V. (1998): Grbner bases. A computational approach to commutative algebra. Graduate Text in Mathematics 141, 2nd Edition, SpringerVerlag, New York 1998.
Benning, W.(1974): Der krzeste Abstand eines in rechtwinkligen Koordinaten gegebenen Auenpunktes vom Ellipsoid, Allgemeine VermessungsNachrichten 81 (1974) 429433.
Benning, W.(1987): Iterative ellipsoidische Lotfupunktberechung, Allgemeine VermessungsNachrichten 94 (1987)
256260.
Blaha, G. and Besette, R. P. (1989): Nonlinear least squares method via an isomorphic geometrical setup, Bulletin
Geodesique 63 (1989) 115138.
Borre, K. and Lauritzen, S. L. (1983): Some geometric aspects of adjustment, In. Festschrift to Torben Krarup, Eds.
E. Kejlso et al., Geod. Inst., No. 58, pp. 7090.
Borg, I. and Groenen, P. (1997): Modern multidimensional scaling, SpringerVerlag, New York 1997.
113
Crosilla, F. (1983b): Procrustean transformation as a tool for the construction of a criterion Matrix for control networks, Manuscripta Geodetica 8 (1983b) 343370.
Dach, R. (2000): Einflu von Auflasteffekten auf Przise GPSMessungen, DGK, Reihe C, Heft Nr. 519.
Davenport, J. H., Siret, Y. and Tournier, E. (1988): Computer algebra. Systems and algorithms for algebraic computation, Academic Press Ltd., St. Edmundsbury, London 1988.
Dixon, A. L. (1908): The elimination of three quantics in two independent variables, Proc. London Mathematical
Society series 2 6 (1908) 468478.
Dryden, I. L. (1998): General registration and shape analysis. STAT 96/03. Stochastic Geometry: Likelihood and
Computation, by W. S. Kendell, O. BarndoffNielsen and M. N. N. van Lieshout, Chapman and Hall/CRC Press,
333364, Boca Raton 1998.
Finsterwalder, S. and Scheufele, W. (1937): Das Rckwartseinschneiden im Raum, Sebastian Finsterwalder zum 75
Geburtstage, pp. 86100, Verlag Hebert Wichmann, Berlin 1937.
Fischler, M. A. and Bolles, R. C. (1981): Random Sample Consensus: A Paradigm for Medell Fitting with Application to Image Analysis and Automated Cartography, Communications of the ACM 24 (1981) 381395.
Fitzgibbon, A., Pilu, M. and Fisher, R. B. (1999): Direct least squares fitting of ellipses, IEEE Transactions on
Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 21 (1999) 476480.
Fotiou, A.(1998): A pair of closed expressions to transform geocentric to geodetic coordinates, Zeitschrift fr Vermessungswesen 123 (1998) 133135.
Frhlich, H. and Hansen, H. H. (1976): Zur Lotfupunktrechnung bei rotationsellipsoidischer Bezugsflche, Allgemeine VermessungsNachrichten 83 (1976) 175179.
Fukushima, T. (1999): Fast transform from geocentric to geodetic coordinates, Journal of Geodesy 73 (1999) 603610.
Gander, W., Golub, G. H. and Strebel, R. (1994): LeastSquares fitting of circles and ellipses, BIT No. 43 (1994)
558578.
Gao, X. S. and Chou S. C. (1990): Implicitization of rational parametric equations. Technical report, Department of
Computer Science TR9034, University of Texas, Austin 1990.
Gelfand, I. M., Kapranov, M. M. and Zelevinsky, A. V. (1990): Generalized Euler Integrals and AHypergeometry
Functions, Advances in Mathematics 84 (1990) 255271.
Gelfand, I. M., Kapranov, M. M. and Zelevinsky, A. V. (1994): Discriminants, resultants and multidimensional
determinants, Birkhuser, Boston 1994.
Gotthardt, E. (1940): Zur Unbestimmtheit des rumlichen Rckwrtseinschnittes, Mitteilungen der Ges. f. Photogrammetry e.V., Jnner 1940, Heft 5.
Gotthardt, E. (1974): Ein neuer gefhrlicher Ort zum rumlichen Rckwrtseinschneiden, Bildm. u. Luftbildw.,
1974.
Grafarend, E. (1981): Die Beobachtungsgleichungen der dreidimensionalen Geodsie im Geometrie und Schwereraum. Ein Beitrag zur operationellen Geodsie, Zeitschrift fr Vermessungswesen 106 (1981) 411429.
Grafarend, E. (1975): Three dimensional Geodesy 1. The holonomity problem, Zeitschrift fr Vermessungswesen
100 (1975) 269280.
Grafarend, E. (1985): VarianceCovariance component estimation; theoretical results and geodetic applications,
Statistics & Decisions, Supplement IssueNo. 2 (1985) 407441.
Grafarend, E. (1988): Azimuth transport and the problem of orientation within geodetic traverses and geodetic
networks, Vermessung, Photogrammetrie, Kulturtechnik 86 (1988) 132150.
Grafarend, E. (1989): Photogrammetrische Positionierung. Festschrift fr Prof. Dr.Ing. Dr. h.c Friedrich Ackermann zum 60. Geburtstag, Institut fr Photogrammetrie, Univeritt Stuttgart, Heft 14, pp.4455, Stuttgart
1989.
115
Grafarend, E. (1991): Application of Geodesy to Engineering. IAGSymposium No. 108, Eds. K. Linkwitz, V.
Eisele, H. J. Mnicke, SpringerVerlag, BerlinHeidelbergNew York 1991.
Grafarend, E. and Kunz, J. (1965): Der Rckwrtseinschnitt mit dem Vermessungskreisel, Bergbauwissenschaften
12 (1965) 285297.
Grafarend, E. and Schaffrin, B. (1974): Unbiased Freenet adjustment, Survey Review 22 (1974) 200218.
Grafarend, E. and Richter, B. (1977): Generalized Laplace condition, Bull. Geod. 51 (1977) 287293.
Grafarend, E. and Sanso, F. (1985): Optimization and design of geodetic networks, SpringerVerlag, BerlinHeidelbergNew YorkTokyo 1985.
Grafarend, E. and Schaffrin, B. (1989): The geometry of nonlinear adjustmentthe planar trisection problem,
Festschrift to T. Krarup edited by E. Kejlso, K. Poder and C. C. Tscherning, pp. 149172, Denmark 1989.
Grafarend, E. and Schaffrin, B. (1991): The planar trisection problem and the impact of curvature on nonlinear least
squares estimation, Computational statistics & data analysis 12 (1991) 187199.
Grafarend, E. and Lohse, P. (1991): The minimal distance mapping of the topographic surface onto the (reference)
ellipsoid of revolution, Manuscripta Geodaetica 16 (1991) 92110.
Grafarend, E. and Schaffrin, B. (1993): Ausgleichungsrechnung in Linearen Modellen, B. I. Wissenschaftsverlag,
Mannheim 1983.
Grafarend, E. and Keller, W. (1995): Setup of observational functionals in gravity space as well as in geometry space,
Manuscripta Geodetica 20 (1995) 301325.
Grafarend, E. and Shan, J. (1996): Closedform solution of the nonlinear pseudoranging equations (GPS), ARTIFICIAL SATELLITES, Planetary Geodesy No 28, Special issue on the 30th anniversary of the Department of
Planetary Geodesy, Vol. 31 No 3, pp. 133147, Warszawa 1996.
Grafarend, E. and Shan, J. (1997a): Closedform solution of P4P or the threedimensional resection problem in terms
of Mbius barycentric coordinates, Journal of Geodesy 71 (1997) 217231.
Grafarend, E., and Shan, J. (1997b): Closed form solution of the twin P4P or the combined three dimensional
resectionintersection problem in terms of Mbius barycentric coordinates, Journal of Geodesy 71 (1997) 232239.
Grafarend, E. and Okeke, F. (1998): Transformation of conformal coordinates of type Mercator from global datum
(WGS 84) to local datum (regional, national), Marine Geodesy 21 (1998) 169180.
Grafarend, E. and Syfuss, R. (1998): Transformation of conformal coordinates of type GaussKrger or UTM from
local datum (regional, national, European) to global datum (WGS 84) part 1: The transformation equations,
Allgemeine VermessungsNachrichten 105 (1998) 134141.
Grafarend, E. and Ardalan, A. (1999): World geodetic datum 2000, Journal of Geodesy 73 (1999) 611623.
Grafarend, E. W. and Awange, J. L. (2000): Determination of vertical deflections by GPS/LPS measurements,
Zeitschrift fr Vermessungswesen 125 (2000) 279288.
Grafarend, E., Lohse, P. and Schaffrin, B. (1989): Dreidimensionaler Rckwrtsschnitt, Zeitschrift fr Vermessungswesen 114 (1989) 6167,127137,172175,225234,278287.
Grafarend, E., Krumm, F. and Okeke, F. (1995): Curvilinear geodetic datum transformation, Zeitschrift fr Vermessungswesen 120 (1995) 334350.
Grafarend E., Syffus, R. and You, R. J. (1995): Projective heights in geometry and gravity space, Allgemeine
VermessungsNachrichten 102 (1995) 382402.
Grafarend, E., Heister, H., Kelm, R., Knopff, H. and Schaffrin, B. (1979): Optimierung Geodtischer Messoperationen, Herbat Wichmann Verlag, Karlsruhe 1979.
Green, B. (1952): The orthogonal approximation of an oblique structure in factor analysis, Psychometrika 17 (1952)
429440.
116
Grewal, M. S., Weill, L. R. and Andrews, A. P. (2001): Global Positioning Systems, Inertial Navigation and Integration, John Wiley & Sons, New York 2001.
Grunert, J. A . (1841): Das Pothenotsche Problem in erweiterter Gestalt; nebst Bemerkungen ber seine Anwendungen in der Geodsie, Grunerts Archiv fr Mathematik und Phsyik 1 pp. 238241, 1841.
Guckenheimer, J., Myers, M. and Sturmfels, B. (1997): Computing Hopf birfucations, SIAM J. Numerical Analysis
34 (1997) 121.
Gulliksson, M. (1995a): The partial Procrustes problem  A first look, Department of Computing Science, Umea
University, Report UMINF95.11, Sweden 1995.
Gullikson, M. (1995b): Algorithms for the partial Procrustes problem, Department of Industrial Technology, Mid
Sweden University s891 18, Report 1995:27, Ornskoldsvik, Sweden 1995.
Gullikson, M. and Sderkvist, I. (1995): Surface fitting and parameter estimation with nonlinear least squares,
Zeitschrift fr Vermessungswesen 25 (1989) 611636.
Guolin, L. (2000): Nonlinear curvature measures of strength and nonlinear diagnosis, Allgemein VermessungsNachrichten 107 (2000) 109111.
Hanselman, D. and Littlefield, B. (1997): The student edition of Matlab, PrenticeHall, New Jersey 1997.
Hammer, E. (1896): Zur graphischen Ausgleichung beim trigonometrischen Einschneiden von Punkten, Zeitschrift
fr Vermessungswesen 25 (1896) 611636.
Han, S. C., Kwon, J. H. and Jekeli, C. (2001): Accurate absolute GPS positioning through satellite clock error
estimation, Journal of Geodesy 75 (2001) 3343.
Haralick, R. M., Lee, C., Ottenberg, K., and Nlle, M. (1991): Analysis and Solution of the Three Point Perspective
Pose Estimation Problem, Proc. IEEE Org. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 592598, 1991.
Haralick, R. M., Lee, C., Ottenberg, K., and Nlle, M. (1994): Review and Analysis of Solution of the Three Point
Perspective Pose Estimation Problem, International Journal of Computer Vision 13 3 (1994) 331356.
Heck, B.(1987): Rechenverfahren und Auswertemodelle der Landesvermessung, Wichmann Verlag, Karlsruhe 1987.
Heikkinen, M.(1982): Geschlossene Formeln zur Berechnung rumlicher geodtischer Koordinaten aus rechtwinkligen Koordinaten, Zeitschrift fr Vermessungswesen 107 (1982) 207211.
Hein, G. (1982a): A contribution to 3Doperational Geodesy (Principles and observation equations of terrestrial
type), DGK Reihe B, Heft Nr. 258/VII pp.3164.
Hein, G. (1982b): A contribution to 3Doperational Geodesy part 2, DGK Reihe B, Heft Nr. 258/VII pp.6585.
Heiskanen, W. A. and Moritz, H. (1976): Physical Geodesy, Freeman and Company, London 1976.
Hirvonen, R. and Moritz, H. (1963): Practical computation of gravity at high altitudes, Institute of Geodesy, Photogrammetry and Cartography, Ohio State University, Report No. 27, Ohio 1963.
HofmanWellenhof, B., Lichtenegger, H. and Collins, J. (1994): Global Positioning System: Theory and practice,
SpringerVerlag, Wien 1994.
Horaud, R., Conio, B. and Leboulleux, O. (1989): An Analytical Solution for the Perspective 4Point Problem,
Computer Vision, Graphics and Image Processing 47 (1989) 3344.
Hornoch, A. T. (1950): ber die Zurckfhrung der Methode der kleinsten Quadrate auf das Prinzip des arithmetischen Mittels, sterr. Zeitschrift fr Vermessungswesen 38 (1950) 1318.
Ireland, K. and Rosen, M. (1990): A classical introduction to modern number theory, SpringerVerlag, New York
1990.
Jacobi, C. G. I. (1841): Deformatione et proprietatibus determinantum, Crelles Journal fr die reine und angewandte
Mathematik. Bd. 22, 1841.
Kahmen, H. and Faig, W. (1988): Surveying, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 1988.
117
Killian, K. (1990): Der gefhrliche Ort des berbestimmten rumlichen Rckwrtseinschneidens, st.Zeitschrift fr
Vermessungswesen und Photogrammetry 78 (1990) 112.
Klein, U. (1997): Analyse und Vergleich unterschiedlicher Modelle der dreidimensionale, DGK, Reihe C, Heft Nr.
479.
Kleusberg, A. (1994): Die direkte Lsung des rumlichen Hyperbelschnitts, Zeitschrift fr Vermessungswesen 119
(1994) 188192.
Kleusberg, A. (1999): Analytical GPS navigation solution, Quo vadis geodesia...? Festschrift for E. W. Grafarend on
the occasion of his 60th birthday, Eds. F. Krumm and V. S. Schwarze, Report Nr. 1999.61.
Koch, K. R. (1999): Parameter estimation and hypothesis testing in linear models, 2nd Edition, SpringerVerlag,
BerlinHeidelberg 1999.
Krarup, T. (1982): Nonlinear adjustment and curvature, In. Forty years of thought, Delft, pp. 145159, 1982.
Krause, L. O. (1987): A direct solution of GPSType Navigation equations, IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and
Electronic Systems 23 (1987) 225232.
Krishna, S. and Manocha, D. (1995): Numerical algorithms for evaluating onedimensional algebraic sets, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Symbolic and Algebraic Computation ISSAC, July 1012, pp. 5967,
Montreal, Canada, 1995.
Kubik, K. K. (1967): Iterative Methoden zur Lsunge des nichtlinearen Ausgleichungsproblemes, Zeitschrift fr
Vermessungswesen 91 (1967) 145159.
Kurz, S. (1996): Positionierung mittels Rckwartsschnitt in drei Dimensionen. Studienarbeit, Geodtisches Institut,
University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart 1996.
Lapaine, M.(1990): A new direct solution of the transformation problem of Cartesian into ellipsoidal coordinates.
Determination of the geoid: Present and future. Eds. R. H. Rapp and F. Sanso, pp. 395404. SpringerVerlag,
New York 1990.
Leick, A. (1995): GPS satellite surveying, 2nd Edition, John Wiley & Sons, New York 1995.
Lichtenegger, H. (1995): Eine direkte Lsung des rumlichen Bogenschnitts, sterreichische Zeitschrift fr Vermessung und Geoinformation 83 (1995) 224226.
Lin, K. C. and Wang, J. (1995): Transformation from geocentric to geodetic coordinates using Newtons iteration,
Bulletin Geodesique 69 (1995) 300303.
Linnainmaa, S., Harwood, D. and Davis, L. S. (1988): Pose Determination of a ThreeDimensional Object Using
Triangle Pairs, IEEE transaction on pattern analysis and Machine intelligence 105 (1988) 634647.
Lohse, P. (1990): Dreidimensionaler Rckwrtsschnit. Ein Algorithmus zur Streckenberechnung ohne Hauptachsentransformation, Zeitschrift fr Vermessungswesen 115 (1990) 162167.
Lohse, P. (1994): Ausgleichungsrechnung in nichtlinearen Modellen, DGK, Reihe C, Heft Nr. 429.
Loskowski, P.(1991): Is Newtons iteration faster than simple iteration for transformation between geocentric and
geodetic coordinates? Bulletin Geodesique 65 (1991) 1417.
Lyubeznik, G. (1995): Minimal resultant system, Journal of Algebra 177 (1995) 612616.
Macaulay, F. (1902): On some formulae in elimination, Proceeding in London Mathematical Society pp. 327, 1902.
Macaulay, F. (1916): The algebraic theory of modular systems, Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics 19, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge 1916.
Macaulay, F. (1921): Note on the resultant of a number of polynomials of the same degree, Proceeding in London
Mathematical Society 21 (1921) 1421.
Manocha, D. (1992): Algebraic and Numeric techniques for modeling and Robotics, Ph.D. thesis, Computer Science
Division, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of California, Berkeley 1992.
Manocha, D. (1993): Efficient algorithms for multipolynomial resultant, the Computer Journal 36 (1993) 485496.
118
Manocha, D. (1994a): Algorithms for computing selected solutions of polynomial equations, Extended abstract
appearing in the proceedings of the ACM ISSAC 94.
Manocha, D. (1994b): Computing selected solutions of polynomial equations, Proceedings of the International Sypmosium on Symbolic and Algebraic Computations ISSAC, July 2022, pp.18, Oxford 1994.
Manocha, D. (1994c): Solving systems of polynomial equations, IEEE Computer Graphics and application, pp.
4655, March 1994.
Manocha, D. (1998): Numerical methods for solving polynomial equations, Proceedings of Symposia in Applied
Mathematics 53 (1998) 4166.
Manocha, D. and Canny, J. (1991): Efficient techniques for multipolynomial resultant algorithms, Proceedings of the
International Symposium on Symbolic Computations, July 1517, 1991, pp. 8695, Bonn 1991.
Manocha, D. and Canny, J. (1992): Multipolynomial resultant and linear algebra, Proceedings of the International
Symposium on Symbolic and Algebraic Computations ISSAC, July 2729, 1992, pp. 158167, Berkeley 1992.
Manocha, D. and Canny, J. (1993): Multipolynomial resultant algorithms, Journal of Symbolic Computations 15
(1993) 99122.
Mathar, R. (1997): Multidimensionale Skalierung, B. G. Teubner Verlag, Stuttgart 1997.
Mathes, A. (1998): GPS und GLONASS als Teil eines hybrid Mesystems in der geodsie am Beispiel des Systems
HIGGINS, Dissertationen, DGK, Reihe C, Nr. 500.
Mautz, R. (2001): Zur Lsung nichtlinearer Ausgleichungsprobleme bei der Bestimmung von Frequenzen in Zeitreihen, DGK, Reihe C, Nr. 532.
Meissl, P. (1982): Least squares adjustment. A modern approach, Mitteilungen der geodtischen Institut der Technischen Universitt Craz, Folge 43.
Merrit, E. L. (1949): Explicit Threepoint resection in space, Phot. Eng. 15 (1949) 649665.
Mittermayer, E. (1972): A generalization of least squares adjustment of free networks, Bull. Geod. No. 104 (1972)
139155.
Mller, H. M. (1998): Grbner bases and numerical analysis, In Groebner bases and applications. Eds. B. Buchberger
and F. Winkler, London mathematical society lecture note series 251. Cambridge university press, pp.159177,
1998.
Morgan, A. P. (1992): Polynomial continuation and its relationship to the symbolic reduction of polynomial systems,
In Symbolic and Numerical Computations for Artificial Intelligence, pp. 2345, 1992.
Mller, F. J. (1925): Direkte (Exakte) Lsungen des einfachen Rckwarscnittseinschneidens im Raum. 1 Teil,
Zeitschrift fr Vermessungswesen 37 (1925) 249255, 265272, 349353, 365370, 569580.
Mukherjee, K.(1996): Robust estimation in nonlinear regression via minimum distance method. Mathematical methods of statistics, Vol 5, No. 1, Allerton Press. Inc., New York 1996.
Musyoka, S. M. (1999): Ein Modell fr ein vierdimensionales integriertes regionales geodtisches Netz, Ph. D.
thesis, Department of Geodesy, University of Karlsruhe (Internet Publication), 1999.
Nicholson, W. K. (1999): Introduction to abstract algebra, Second Edition, John Wiley & Sons, New YorkChichesterweinheimBrisbaneSingapore 1999.
Okeke, F. I. (1998): The curvilinear datum transformation model, DGK, Reihe C, Heft Nr. 481.
Ozone, M. I.(1985): Noniterative solution of the equations, Surveying and Mapping 45 (1985) 169171.
Paul, M. K. (1973): A note on computation of geodetic coordinates from geocentric (Cartesian) coordinates, Bull.
Geod. No. 108 (1973)135139.
Penev, P.(1978): The transformation of rectangular coordinates into geographical by closed formulas Geo. Map.
Photo, 20 (1978) 175177.
Perelmuter, A. (1979): Adjustment of free networks, Bull. Geod. 53 (1979) 291295.
119
Pick, M.(1985): Closed formulae for transformation of Cartesian coordinates into a system of geodetic coordinates,
Studia geoph. et geod. 29 (1985) 653666.
Pistone, G. and Wynn, H. P. (1996): Generalized confounding with Grbner bases, Biometrika 83 (1996) 112119.
Pope, A. (1982): Two approaches to nonlinear least squares adjustments, The Canadian Surveyor 28 (1982) 663669.
Rao, C. R. (1967): Least squares theory using an estimated dispersion matrix and its application to measurement of
signals, Procedure of the Fifth Barkeley Symposium, Barkeley 1967.
Rao, C. R. (1971): Estimation of variance and covariance components  MINQUE theory, Journal of Multivariate
Analysis 1 (1971) 257275.
Rao, C. R. (1973): Representation of the best linear unbiased estimators in the GaussMarkov model with singular
dispersion matrix, Journal of multivariate analysis 3 (1973) 276292.
Rao, C. R. (1978): Choice of the best linear estimators in the GaussMarkov model with singular dispersion matrix,
Comm. Stat. Theory Meth. A7 (13) (1978) 11991208.
Rao, C. R. and Kleffe, J. (1979): Variance and covariance components estimation and applications, Technical Report
No. 181, Ohio State University, Dept. of Statistics, Columbus, Ohio.
Richter, B. (1986): Entwurf eines nichtrelativistischen geodtischastronomischen Bezugssystems, DGK, Reihe C,
Heft Nr. 322.
Rinner, K (1962): ber die Genauigkeit des rumlichen Bogenschnittes, Zeitschrift fr Vermessungswesen 87 (1962)
361374.
Ritt, J. F. (1950): Differential algebra, AMS colloquium publications.
Runge, C. (1900): Graphische Ausgleichung beim Rckwtseinchneiden, Zeitschrift fr Vermessungswesen 29
(1900) 581588.
Saito, T. (1973): The nonlinear least squares of condition equations, Bull. Geod. 110 (1973) 367395.
Salmon, G. (1876): Lessons Introductory to modern higher algebra, Hodges, Foster and Co., Dublin 1876.
Schaffrin, B. (1983): VarianzKovarianzKomponentenSchtzung bei der Ausgleichung heterogener Wiederholungsmessungen, DGK, Reihe C, Heft Nr.282.
Schek, H. J. and Maier, P. (1976): Nichtlineare Normalgleichungen zur Bestimmung der Unbekannten und deren
Kovarianzmatrix, Zeitschrift fr Vermessungswesen 101 (1976) 140159.
Schnemann, P. H. (1996): Generalized solution of the orthogonal Procrustes problem, Psychometrika 31 (1996)
110.
Schwarze, V. S. (1995): Satellitengeodtische Positionierung in der relativistischen RaumZeit, DGK, Reihe C, Heft
Nr.449.
Shut, G. H. (1958/59): Construction of orthogonal matrices and their application in analytical Photogrammetrie,
Photogrammetria XV (1958/59) 149162.
Singer, P., Strbel, D,. Hrdt, R., Bahndorf, J. and Linkwitz, K. (1993): Direkte Lsung des rmlichen Bogenschnitts, Zeitschrift fr Vermessungswesen 118 (1993) 2024.
Sjberg, L. E.(1999): An efficient iterative solution to transform rectangular geocentric coordinates to geodetic
coordinates, Zeitschrift fr Vermessungswesen 124 (1999) 295297.
Soler, T. and Hothem, L. D. (1989): Important parameters used in geodetic transformations, Journal of Surveying
Engineering 115 (1989) 414417.
Strang, G. and Borre, K. (1997): Linear Algebra, Geodesy and GPS, Wellesley Cambridge Press, Wellesley 1997.
Sturmfels, B. (1994): Multigraded resultant of Sylvester type, Journal of Algebra 163 (1994) 115127.
Sturmfels, B. (1996): Grbner bases and convex polytopes, American Mathematical Society, Providence 1996.
120
Sturmfels, B. (1998): Introduction to resultants, Proceedings of Symposia in Applied Mathematics 53 (1998) 2539.
Snkel, H.(1999): Ein nichtiteratives Verfahren zur Transformation geodtischer Koordinaten, ster. Zeitschrift fr
Vermessungswesen 64 (1999) 2933.
Teunissen, P. J. G (1990): Nonlinear least squares, Manuscripta Geodaetica 15 (1990) 137150.
Teunissen, P. J. G and Knickmeyer, E. H. (1988): Nonlinearity and least squares, CISM Journal ASCGC 42 (1988)
321330.
Thompson, E. H. (1959a): A method for the construction of orthogonal matrices, Photogrammetria III (1959) 5559.
Thompson, E. H. (1959b): An exact linear solution of the absolute orientation. Photogrammetria XV (1959) 163179.
Torge, W. (1991): Geodesy. 2nd Edition. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 1991.
Trefethen, L. N. and Bau, D. (1997): Numerical linear algebra, SIAM, Philadelphia.
Van Der Waerden, B. L. (1950): Modern Algebra, 3rd Edition, F. Ungar Publishing Co., New York 1950.
Vanicek, P. and Krakiwsky, E. J. (1982): Geodesy: The concepts. NorthHolland Publishing Company, AmsterdamNew YorkOxford 1982.
Van Mierlo, J. (1988): Rckwrtschnitt mit Streckenverhltnissen, Algemain Vermessungs Nachrichten 95 (1988)
310314.
Vasconcelos, W. V. (1998): Computational methods in commutative algebra and algebraic geometry, SpringerVerlag,
BerlinHeidelberg 1998.
Vincenty, T. (1978): Vergleich zweier Verfahren zur Berechnung der geodtischen Breite und Hhe aus rechtwinkligen koorninaten, Allgemeine VermessungsNachrichten 85 (1978) 269270.
Vincenty, T. (1980): Zur rumlichellipsoidischen KoordinatenTransformation, Zeitschrift fr Vermessungswesen,
105 (1980) 519521.
Weiss, J. (1993): Resultant methods for the inverse kinematics problem, Computational Kinematics (Eds.) J. Angeles
et al., Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands 1993.
Wellisch, S. (1910): Theorie und Praxis der Ausgleichsrechnung. Bd. II: Probleme der Ausgleichsrechnung, 1910.
Werkmeister, P. (1916): Trigonometrische Punktbestimmung durch einfaches Einschneiden mit Hilfe von Vertikalwinkeln,
Zeitschrift fr Vermessungswesen 45 (1916) 248251.
Werkmeister, P. (1920): ber die Genauigkeit trigonometrischer Punktbestimmungen, Zeitschrift fr Vermessungswesen 49 (1920) 401412,433456.
Werner, D. (1913): Punktbestimmung durch Vertikalwinkelmessung, Zeitschrift fr Vermessungswesen 42 (1913)
241253.
Winkler, F. (1996): A polynomial algorithm in computer algebra, SpringerVerlag, Wien 1996.
Wu, W. (1984): On the decision problem and mechanization of the theorem proving elementary geometry, Scientia
Sinica 21 (1984) 150172.
You, R. J.(2000): Transformation of Cartesian to geodetic coordinates without iterations, Journal of Surveying Engineering 126 (2000) 17.
Zaiser, J. (1986): Begrndung Beobachtungsgleichungen und Ergebnisse fr dreidimensionales geometrischphysikalishes
Modell der Geodsie, Zeitschrift fr Vermessungswesen 111 (1986) 190196.
Zhang, S. (1994): Anwendung der Drehmatrix in Hamilton normierten Quaternionenen bei der Bndelblock Ausgleichung, Zeitschrift fr Vermessungswesen 119 (1994) 203211.
Zippel, R.(1993): Effective polynomial computation, Kluwer Academic Publications, Boston 1993.
121