The big question that is being investigated here is if the data that was collected confirm or contradict Da Vinci’s proportions and the simple answer is that the data contradicts the theory. The reason behind this is because if you think about it, if it was true in all cases that the arm span is the same length as the height of the person the data would definitely be very linear then how it looks now. There are situations where this is true for some people but in the case of how the SLA statistics students collected their data is not. In both cases Vinci’s equation is X=Y, meaning when one body part is a number the other body part in comparison has to be the same exact number. With many different points of this data does that not stand true. For the height and. arm span females had a closer model to the Vitruvian Man proportion because of the points being closer to the residual line. For the comparison between the length of the foot to the forearm males has a closer relationship which is more closer to the model then the females had. Talking about age groups, I did 16-19 year olds and both seem to have a clear amount of human error which had a lot of effect on the ending results. Its hard to tell whether or not age matters at this point. It makes sense that it does because at those ages more humans bodies stop growing so there would be a even set of better numbers collected.
I do believe my model is more accurate than Da Vinci’s model. It makes sense, if there was better data that was collected that this would be true. There are cases that these proportions can match to have the same measurements but not in every case. I did do some research on this and it does say that “Of the tests in the study, 83.78% and 85.96% were classified and categorized correctly when arm span and estimated height, respectively, were substituted for actual height. There was a positive strong correlation(r=0.779 & 0.808) between arm span and height.” and this is done a one-hundred eighty degree angle which most to none of the students probably didn't know. You can say that depending on the age and everything else about the person but this theory is not for everyone.
I do believe my model is more accurate than Da Vinci’s model. It makes sense, if there was better data that was collected that this would be true. There are cases that these proportions can match to have the same measurements but not in every case. I did do some research on this and it does say that “Of the tests in the study, 83.78% and 85.96% were classified and categorized correctly when arm span and estimated height, respectively, were substituted for actual height. There was a positive strong correlation(r=0.779 & 0.808) between arm span and height.” and this is done a one-hundred eighty degree angle which most to none of the students probably didn't know. You can say that depending on the age and everything else about the person but this theory is not for everyone.