Ambiguity — where it appears
Named by 4 essays across 2 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
Seven marks, three answers
Seven correspondences leave a two-dimensional nullspace, and the requirement that a fundamental matrix be singular is a cubic in the mix — one or three real roots. Here it has three, and all three satisfy every one of the seven marks to 8.9 × 10⁻⁹ pixels. The eighth mark, withheld, separates them by more than an order of magnitude.
The surface two pictures cannot separate
There is a quadric through both camera centres on which two genuinely different motions draw identical pictures. Built explicitly, forty-two marks satisfy both epipolar geometries to 2 × 10⁻¹³ pixels, and the two scenes they reconstruct place the same mark at 15.6 metres and 35.1. The design matrix's nullspace has two dimensions rather than one, which is the seven-point situation arrived at from the other side.
An ambiguity is not an uncertainty
Eight marks to forty cuts a solid scene's pose error from 19.8° to 0.7° and leaves a flat one at 48°. The two failures look identical from inside — a confident answer, a residual at the floor — and they respond to opposite remedies, so telling them apart is worth more than either measurement.
The height a flat floor cannot give
The marks of a floor anamorph name the eye's position on the floor exactly and say nothing about how high it was — every candidate height explains them perfectly, to one part in a thousand trillion. That is a fact about planes rather than about anamorphs. Ripple the floor by six centimetres and the family collapses: the true height explains the marks exactly and the nearest wrong one, five centimetres away, leaves two millimetres on a design 1.8 metres wide.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
Critical surfaceMinimal solverreconstruction ambiguityDegeneracyEpipolar geometryFundamental matrixleast squaresAnamorphosisCollineationConditioningCorrespondenceDegenerate family