Rank — where it appears
Named by 4 essays across 3 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
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.
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.
What two parallel views leave free
Two perspective pictures give shape and no size. Two parallel pictures do not even give shape: the metric upgrade has six unknowns, two views supply six equations, and the system comes out rank five — a one-parameter family of solids that redraw both pictures to 7e-16 m. A third view closes it, and the mirror image survives every count.
Five tangents name the same conic
Fitting a conic to five lines is the same six-coefficient nullspace problem as fitting one to five points, with the roles exchanged, and it lands on the same curve to 2.6 × 10⁻¹¹ pixels. What duality does not promise is that the two are equally good evidence — and measured at equal marking precision they are, to within seventeen per cent, because a drawn tangent is made of points.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
reconstruction ambiguitydegrees of freedomEpipolar geometryFundamental matrixNullspacesingular valuesAffine reconstructionAmbiguityConditioningConicConic fitCorrespondence