Degeneracy — where it appears
Named by 23 essays across 10 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
A turn of the head is not a step sideways
The textbook says a short baseline makes reconstruction ill-conditioned. Measured, the algebra does not notice — a two-millimetre baseline recovers the courtyard to nine digits from exact marks. What fails is the ratio of baseline to reading error, and it fails without refusing.
The pixel that is not square
A camera with two focal lengths is a real thing — anamorphic cinema optics, non-square photosites, a stretched video format. Hand the round trip of camera recovery a picture from one and it returns a focal length 49.6% out, a principal point far from the truth, three independent estimates agreeing to 1e-16, and bundle residuals at the noise floor. Every alarm the site has stays silent.
A picture with two eyes in it
Several traditions draw the floor from one place and the people on it from another. No single camera produces both, as an earlier essay showed. What such a picture actually is has a measurement attached: give the rays their world points and ask for the one place they all pass through, and at a stride of separation the best answer misses them by six tenths of a metre.
A flat scene fixes no second eye
Eight marks on one plane leave the eight-point design matrix two ranks short, so a two-parameter family of fundamental matrices satisfies every mark exactly — three of its members are 1.41 apart after normalisation and all three fit to 1.6 × 10⁻⁶ pixels. The same photographs determine the plane's own map from four marks, to 5.9 × 10⁻¹³ pixels.
Far enough away, a pair is one eye
Hold the baseline and walk the scene away, and the parallax a single homography cannot explain falls as the distance to the power −0.968 — one over the distance, which says the ratio of baseline to depth is the whole of it. The recovered translation direction follows it down, from 3.3° at four metres to 74.5° at two hundred and fifty-six.
How flat is flat enough
With exact marks the transition has no width at all — 84° of pose error at exactly coplanar and 0.000° at eight parts in ten thousand of relief. Put three tenths of a pixel of reading error in and the same sweep becomes a slope three decades wide, crossing into usefulness when the out-of-plane parallax reaches about ten times the marking error.
The drawing does not say which corner is nearer
The Necker cube is filed under optical illusion, as though the flipping were something the eye does. It is not: a parallel drawing of a cube is a drawing of exactly two cubes, mirror images of each other, and they project to the identical picture to the last bit. Perspective rules the second one out at a rate exactly inverse in the eye's distance, and never entirely.
Counting the eyes needs the room
How many eyes made a picture is not a question the picture can be asked. Told what the room really measures, the rays refuse to meet and a second eye has been caught; told instead that the room is the one the picture is consistent with, the same rays meet exactly, at the first eye. The refusal is real and it belongs to the room.
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.
The lines a surface leaves alone
Only the plane draws every straight line straight, which is easy to measure and which gets read as though a curved surface bent everything. It does not. Every curved picture surface here keeps a one-parameter family of world lines exactly straight, and the family is a curve on the sphere of lines rather than a region of it — so a grid of samples finds none of it, which is what the first version of this measurement reported.
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.
Raise the gaze, and the line is gone
Turn two eyes 20° aside in the plane they share and the horopter keeps its vertical line — but the line stays in the median plane, 1.277 m ahead, not at the point being looked at. Raise the gaze as well and the rule by which each eye rolls decides the rest: Helmholtz's rule keeps a line; Listing's law and Fick's rule make the eyes' relative motion slide 3.93 mm and 7.09 mm along its axis, no point stays put, and the horopter becomes one curve.
What a flat map leaves alone
A projectivity of the plane is eight numbers in a matrix, and reading them tells a reader nothing. What it does is decided by its fixed points, and there are exactly three cases: three isolated fixed points, or a whole line of them with one point off it, or a whole line of them with the point fallen onto it. The middle case has five numbers instead of eight and every point slides along a line, and it is what most of the maps this site builds turn out to be.
A wire with a corner in its shadow
A bent wire has no corner anywhere on it, and its shadow has one. The lamps that do it are not a coincidence — they are a surface in the room, two-dimensional, made of the wire's own tangent lines, and a lamp being carried across the room passes through it.
A hole is not preserved
The shadow of a connected object is connected — always, at every lamp position, and for a reason with no geometry in it. A hole survives in neither direction: a ring's shadow closes up at a computable tilt, and an object with no hole in it casts a shadow that has one.
A sliding pair keeps its line only near the middle
Two eyes that roll by Listing's law lose the horopter's straight line as soon as they look up and aside, and the question worth a number is whether they lose it by much. Measured along the line they nearly keep, the disparity is exactly the slide seen by one eye — 3.20 px at 20° aside and 20° up, a metre and a bit away — and the slide does not shrink with distance. At arm's length the line survives to within a pixel only in a narrow cross through the middle of the field.
The quadrilateral no rectangle casts
The relation that reads a camera out of a drawn rectangle has a minus sign in it, and the minus sign is a refusal: two vanishing points on the same side of the assumed centre give the square root of a positive number, and no camera makes that quadrilateral out of a rectangle. Watching the refusal arrive shows what it is worth — one corner has to travel most of the picture's width before it fires.
Every quadric has one outline
The curve where a solid turns away from the eye is the section of the solid by one plane — the eye's polar plane — and the outline is three matrix products with no sampling in them. It works for a ball, a dish and a hyperboloid, and it fails for a cone, whose dual outline collapses to a single point and forgets which two lines pass through it.
What a null result is worth in decades
The first draft of this expected a short sweep to invent a floor, on the reasoning that least squares always spends a free parameter. It does not — on exact data the fitted floor of a floor-free law comes back at three parts in a quadrillion. The failure is the other one and it is worse because it looks like a result. Over a third of a decade at one per cent noise, floors of a fifth of the first sample are still consistent with the data, and the fit reports none while telling the truth.
The lamp's size over its distance, and nothing else
One straight-edge shadow gives a lamp's angular size and nothing about its actual size or distance — scale a 36 cm lamp and its 3.0 m distance together and the band it casts differs by 0.0e+0. A second card at a different height breaks the tie, recovering 36.00 cm at 3.000 m from bands of 18.0 cm and 144.0 cm alone, at a condition number of 37.1.
The lamp a low shadow cannot locate
Five posts, their shadows, and the line from each foot through its own shadow's tip meet at the lamp standing over them — at 52 degrees up that meet moves 0.11 m for half a pixel of marking error; at 11.5 degrees, 0.64 m. The two eigenvalues of the same pencil of lines part by a factor of 8849084 across the sweep, and half a pixel becomes more than a metre of lamp below 14.4 degrees.
Where a shadow splits in two
A gantry's shadow is two pieces at a lamp height of 1.36 m, and the crossing to one piece happens at a tangency running the whole length of the beam rather than at a point — the same plane that meets a ball at an aspect of 1.00 to 1 meets the beam at 1736 to 1, and a grid finds the true crossing height to a fitted exponent of 1.00 as it is refined. A ring tipped 70° keeps its hole for a completely unrelated reason, closing only at 71.34°, which is the warning that a shadow's topology changes at a tangency names two different accidents rather than one.
How many shadows determine the object
One lamp's shadow says only that a convex section lies inside a wedge 10.5 times its own area; four already cut that down to 1.17 times, and 128 close a convex section's boundary to 0.10 mm everywhere. The identical sweep on a section with a bite taken out of it stalls at 70.3 mm, 675 times worse, because an outline is the boundary of the smallest convex body with that shadow and no direction ever sees inside a concavity.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
DemonstrationConditioningreconstruction ambiguityContour generatorerror propagationHomographyleast squaresnecessary, not sufficientBaselineFree parameterFundamental matrixinstrument limit