Re^3: structuring data: aka walk first, grok later

If I understand you correctly, then each datapoint (O,D,X,Y) represents one photon hitting a pixel(XY) of a detector (D) during an observation (O). And that pixel may be struck zero, one or many times during a given observation. If it is hit more than once, then there will be multiple, identical, (O.D.X.Y) datapoints in the dataset for that detector/observation pairing?

Is that correct?

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

"Too many [] have been sedated by an oppressive environment of political correctness and risk aversion."

Comment on Re^3: structuring data: aka walk first, grok later

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: structuring data: aka walk first, grok later by chexmix (Hermit) on Jun 06, 2008 at 01:39 UTC
No. Sorry again for my lack of clarity. I was told that each (x, y) pair is s/t that the system has recorded as a positive id, e.g. it represents a 'thing' that has been recorded as having been observed. But due to the nature of the instrument, some or many of these may be spurious: "streaks" on the detector, for example. Such things will show up as a "pileup" of points within a given window (so many pixels wide) in x or y.	[reply]
Re^5: structuring data: aka walk first, grok later by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Jun 06, 2008 at 01:46 UTC
I was told that each (x, y) pair is s/t Great. An "s/t"!. Sorry. Trying to understand your problem has defeated me. I think that may be your problem too. You cannot hope to solve a problem until you understand it. And one usually sure way of checking your understanding is to try and describe it to someone unfamiliar with the field. Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error. "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. "Too many [] have been sedated by an oppressive environment of political correctness and risk aversion."	[reply]