## 4 Discussion  
This section presents a comparison of the results of the observations of the practical inclination values of the land surface using the appropriate geodetic measurements and the calculations of the inclinations' theoretical values for the mining area made using [PERSON]'s model implemented in the EDN-OPN computer program. Inclination values were obtained for 33 points constituting the centers of measurement sections located next to 9 objects and were caused by the exploitation of the 1/II longwall in the 405/1 hard coal seam. Discontinuous linear deformations (the ground steps) also appeared near the B1, B2, B3, and G objects. The results of the comparison are shown in Table 9, in which the \(\left|T_{(i;i+1)}\right|\) absolute values of the practical inclinations, \(T_{j}\) theoretical values of the calculated inclinations, \(\Delta T_{j-(i,i+1)}\) differences between the theoretical and practical values of the inclinations and the \(D_{j}\) deviations of [PERSON]'s model from the practical inclination values in percentage terms are juxtaposed. The \(D_{j}\) model deviations were calculated with Formula (14), as follows:  
\[D_{j}=\frac{T_{j}-\left|T_{(i,i+1)}\right|}{\left|T_{(i,i+1)}\right|}.100\% \tag{14}\]  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Building**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Section**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Absolute**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Value of**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Difference between the**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Deviations of the Model**} \\  & & & **Value of** & & **Theoretical** & & **Theoretical and Practical** \\  & & & & & **Values of inclinations** & & **Values of inclinations** \\  & & \(1\)T\({}_{3,i+1}\) & \(\left|\frac{\mathbf{m}}{\mathbf{m}}\right|\) & & \(\Delta T_{j-(i,i+1)}\) & \(\Delta T_{j}\) [\(\frac{\mathbf{m}}{\mathbf{m}}\)] & \(D_{j}\) [\(\frac{\mathbf{m}}{\mathbf{m  
Taking into account the values of the \(D_{j}\) deviations of [PERSON]'s model, it can be seen that in the case of 15 points (45.45% of all points), this model underestimated the theoretical inclination values by an average of \(-53.54\%\). The highest underestimated values (\(-91.32\%\), \(-93.66\%\), and \(-97.31\%\)) were obtained for the middle points (7, 9, and 33, respectively) of the sections, where the highest values for the inclinations were observed on the land surface (13.83 \(\frac{\text{mm}}{\text{m}}\), 14.19 \(\frac{\text{mm}}{\text{m}}\), and 18.62 \(\frac{\text{mm}}{\text{m}}\), respectively). The average underestimation of the maximum values of the measured inclinations was \(-94.10\%\). Such a large underestimation of the value may result from the appearance of discontinuous linear deformations in the area of points 7 and 9 (ground steps with heights of 15 cm and 20 cm, respectively), which run perpendicular to the z07g-z08g and z10d-z11d measurement sections. It can be seen that the values of the \(D_{j}\) deviations (\(D_{7}=-12.63\frac{\text{mm}}{\text{m}}\) and \(D_{9}=-13.29\frac{\text{mm}}{\text{m}}\)) increased with the height of the ground steps. Previous studies have shown [60] that discontinuous linear deformations may also increase the values of mining area deformation indicators observed in situ. In the case of 18 points (54.55% of all points), [PERSON]'s model overestimated the theoretical values of the inclinations by as much as 461.90% on average. The highest overestimated values (2841.40%, 2388.40%, and 1052.80%) were obtained for the middle points (12, 11, and 1, respectively) of the sections where, generally, the smallest values for the inclinations were observed (0.02 \(\frac{\text{mm}}{\text{m}}\), 0.03 \(\frac{\text{mm}}{\text{m}}\), and 0.16 \(\frac{\text{mm}}{\text{m}}\), respectively). Such a huge overestimation of these values may result from the fact that near points 1, 11, and 12, there were ground steps with heights of 10 cm and 25 cm, respectively, which run parallel to the z35d-z36d and z56d-z57d measurement sections.