Identifiability — where it appears
Named by 29 essays across 12 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
Assembled from several views
An Egyptian relief takes each part of a figure from the direction that identifies it — head in profile, eye and shoulders frontal, a pond in plan. What that buys is exactly measurable: any single viewing direction keeps at most √k of k perpendicular aspects, so the best compromise view retains 58% of each.
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.
The screen that names the seat
A flat screen shows a homography of the intended picture from every seat in the room, and an observer's own framing is free to be a homography too — so a flat screen's picture is consistent with every seat there is. A curved one is not, and the seat comes back out of the picture in all three directions, in units of the screen's own radius.
A pupil sees around an edge
Two backgrounds identical everywhere a pinhole can see, differing only in the strip an occluder hides from it, produce identical pinhole pictures and pupil pictures 42 per cent apart. So no function of the sharp image — no kernel, no depth-dependent kernel, nothing — produces the picture a real lens makes, and the reach behind the edge is R(Z₂/Z₁ − 1), which is 120 mm here.
One picture and three people
A curved screen can be pre-warped for one seat, and the search over which seat to choose returns the middle one to a quarter of a per cent — there is nothing to be clever about. What the correction buys the sofa as a whole is six per cent, and the worst seat grows at fourteen pixels for every metre of audience, with no width at which it is zero except one person.
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.
One depth per sample is not enough
A depth buffer keeps a single distance at each sample, so a post-process blur can only ask how far away the thing at this pixel is. Across an occluding edge that answer is two depths and an occlusion, and the gather it produces differs from the pupil's own integral by 70 per cent of full scale over a band eleven pixels wide.
The same person, twice on one panel
A panel showing one figure at four moments is geometrically the least strange thing in this field — one camera, one floor, and every pair of copies meeting the horizon to 8.5 × 10⁻¹⁴ px. What the picture withholds is the order, and four copies admit twenty-four readings, and a reading convention supplies 4.6 bits from outside the marks. Enlarge one figure by six per cent and the horizon test that passed the panel catches it at 36 px.
Size that means rank
In a great many pictures the drawn height records importance rather than distance. That is a decision rather than a mistake, and it can be caught with a straightedge by carrying one figure's height across the room by the taught construction and see where it lands. A tenth of rank in the picture already misses the drawn head by 21 px, the miss is exactly linear in how much rank is there, and the whole test needs two references and no arithmetic.
A picture in bands
A register picture stacks its scene in horizontal bands, each with its own ground line and every figure drawn at one height. The feet line and the heads line of any pair are then parallel to the arithmetic floor — 0° against 15.4° in a photograph of the same figures — so the picture has no horizon anywhere in it, and what a reader recovers is an ordering with no metre attached.
The pond with its trees laid flat
An Egyptian garden pond is drawn in plan with its trees rotated outward about the bank they stand on. A rotation is an isometry, so every length in that drawing is exactly the length it is in the garden — zero error, not a small one. What is spent is the angle between any two faces, which reads 180° across every hinge and is 90° in the garden, and the four walls admit sixteen assemblies, so a reader supplies four bits to fold it back up.
The wedge recovered with the camera
Admit the glass into the model and the fit finally has something left over. A two-degree wedge is invisible to a reading confined inside eighteen degrees of the axis — the fit calls the whole displacement a rotation of the camera and is right to — and by fifty-five degrees it comes back to 0.07 of a degree. What the picture does not separate is the ordinary glasses — assuming an index of 1.50 for a true 1.52 costs one per cent in the angle and 0.07 pixels of residual.
No solid casts an aspective figure
Fitting the best single rigid view to an aspective figure — head and legs in profile, eye and shoulders turned square — misses its own marks by 2.6% of the drawn height, and no yaw does better than 3.0% in a full sweep. A genuine single-view drawing of the same body fits to 7.6e-13 pixels, and the five rotations recovered from the marks alone match the convention's own list to 0.0e+0°.
Facing the reader is not being reachable
A face turns toward the eye or it does not, and that is a dot product any reader can compute. Whether the eye’s rays actually land on it is a different question with a different answer — on a seating rake, three faces of ten that face the reader receive nothing, and they are 27 per cent of the facing area. On a corner the same test loses nothing at all, which is what makes the gap occlusion rather than arithmetic.
The eye that reaches the most
A higher eye buys the faces occlusion was hiding and loses design off the far end of the object, so "the best eye" is not a question with an answer until somebody says which of the two they are paying for. On three objects the answer is as high as possible; on a corridor with a doorway in it the two quantities cross and the best height is two and a bit metres.
Four marks before anything is said
A reader fitting a correct perspective to a row of transversals has three numbers to choose, so three transversals fit whatever they are and the fourth is the first that can disagree. Below that count a pavement is unfalsifiable, and a great many painted pavements are below it.
The slip that leaves no trace
A distance point put twenty-four pixels wrong moves the pavement by two and a half and leaves the reader's projective test reading exactly four thirds. The same slip on Alberti's section moves the drawing by the same amount and is caught, so the difference is not the size of the error — it is that one of them lands back on the set of correct drawings.
How many lamps a drawing has
The shadow field recovers a lamp by intersecting drawn lines. Two lamps make that a partition rather than an intersection — and two centres fit any bundle better than one, on a one-lamp drawing as readily as on a two-lamp one, so a count is a decision that needs a noise level before it exists. A criterion built on a penalty instead of a noise level returns four.
A fold names the height
A pavement anamorph’s marks fix where the reader must stand and leave how tall they are entirely free — every height explains the marks exactly, to the last bit. Put one crease in the floor and the freedom is gone, because two degrees of fold makes a ten-centimetre error in the height leave six tenths of a millimetre, and a right angle makes it nine.
The distance at which two lamps part
Two lamps five centimetres apart are one lamp, and the drawing is right to say so. The separation at which they become two is proportional to how carelessly the picture was clicked — 3.6 centimetres at half a pixel, 7.2 at one, 28 at four — with no floor anywhere, so nothing but care stands between a reader and any separation at all.
Stepped, or measured from the zero
The same hand at the same precision, laying the same braccia off two ways — dividers walked from the last mark accumulate and grow as the square root of the count, while marks set from a common origin do not accumulate at all. The difference is not which method was used — it is where the zero is, and only the second is recorded in the drawing.
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.
A floor cannot fake a second lamp
Cast the same two lamps onto four floors at four curvatures and ask how well one centre explains the drawing. Every one of the thirteen answers is 138.3277 pixels — the same to fifteen digits, because a floor decides where along a ray the shadow's tip landed, and a line through a point and another point that has slid along it is the same line.
What a panel says about its maker
The reading assembled over this row, run against every procedure sixty times and scored — with the failures reported as carefully as the successes, because three of the five rows are refusals. A drawing names the class of error in it, not the recipe that produced it, and one procedure it never names at all.
The drawing does not run out of lines
Every post supplies a line to every lamp, so a drawing of five posts offers ten lines to two lamps and twenty to four — the unknowns and the constraints grow together and two posts fix any number of lights. What runs out is the partition, whose margin falls from 251 pixels to six as the share of lines assigned correctly falls from all to just over half.
Which rule a fisheye obeys, from straightness alone
Four candidate rules for a fisheye lens part by 54.0 per cent at 45° off axis, and a plumb-line fit shown no scene, no camera and no calibration target can still name which one took a photograph — reliably from about 45° of half-field. Below that the four are indistinguishable in the marks, and naming one collapses to guessing.
Counting shadows is not counting lamps
Two lamps close together cast one connected dark patch and the drawn lines say two. One lamp behind two cards casts two patches and the lines say one, exactly. And the arrangement where the patch count is right — two lamps far apart — has no fully dark region at all, so the same floor answers one, two or zero depending on which darkness is being counted.
The arrangement the count cannot see
Five posts laid out five different ways give the same leverage to a sixth and the same separation limit to a quarter, and the sixth arrangement — posts strung out along their own shadows, built to be exactly degenerate — is no worse than the rest. The degeneracy belongs to the family the count does not use, and its conditioning there is exactly zero.
The arcs the five-point construction actually draws
The taught five-point construction draws circular arcs between five vanishing points and instructs a draughtsman to graduate the radius evenly. Read that way, the arcs miss a straight line's true image by up to 3.75 pixels on a 300-pixel disc. Read at the stereographic scale instead, the same arcs are exact to 4.3e-13 pixels — the construction was always drawing one projection, and the taught scale was never it.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
ResidualConditioningdegrees of freedomLight recoveryOcclusionPoint lightFree parameterHorizoninstrument limitSamplingAnamorphosisDrawing convention