Tolerance — where it appears
Named by 13 essays across 10 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
The lens a pavement can hide
A photographed pavement reads as a correct drawing up to a radial coefficient of about four tenths — a lens strong enough to bow a straight edge across the page by nearly six pixels and to print as twenty per cent distortion at the frame's corner. The reason is that a pavement sits near the principal point, which is the one part of the frame a radial map barely touches.
The rule that draws another room
The taught rule for spacing receding boards — each gap a fixed fraction of the last — is not a projection of anything, and it produces a pavement that is a correct perspective to within a fifth of a pixel. Of a room whose horizon is a hundred and seventy pixels from the one the panel drew. The error is not incoherence; it is a disagreement between two halves of one drawing.
A camera count needs a tolerance
Asked how few cameras could have drawn a splayed picture, a constructed stack answers four, three, two or one depending on how many pixels of redrawing a reader will allow — one camera at 17.6 px, two at 11.1, three at 4.6. The count is real: a picture built with two groups hidden in it gives back exactly those two, anywhere between nothing and 47.0 px. What it is not is a property of the picture alone, and the floor under it belongs to the hand — a one-camera drawing made by a hand that scatters its far corners by σ splits below about 0.57σ, where the 0.57 belongs to that hand and runs from 0.17 to 1.34 across a hundred and twenty of them.
The rows under a splay measure the bays, not the lean
A splayed strip drawn with its rows evenly spaced is still an exact picture of one flat plane leaning toward the eye — the straight sides fix the plane, whatever the rows do. What the rows decide is how deep each bay is, and evenly spaced ones make the near bay deeper than the far by nearly the square of the splay. That, and the six-per-cent gap between even rows and a camera's, depends on the splay alone — not on the lean, the distance or the lens.
The room the eye may stand in
An anamorph is correct from one point, and one point is not a thing a person can occupy. Fix a tolerance on the picture and the set of eye positions that meet it is a solid — for a design 1.8 m wide and a ten-millimetre tolerance it is 36 mm long, 14 mm across and 31 cubic centimetres altogether, a spindle pointing along the line of sight. Ten times the tolerance is a thousand times the room.
The corner that answers every eye
Three mirrors at right angles compose into the point inversion, so a ray entering leaves antiparallel to itself whatever direction it arrived from — a picture surface with no correct viewpoint because every viewpoint is correct. Tilt one face half a degree and the worst returning ray is out by exactly one degree, twice the error; the best is out by a twelfth of it, which is why a tolerance quoted from one measured ray is a statement about that ray.
The distance at which the eyes part
The two eyes' disagreement on a curved screen was measured at each screen's own sitting distance and reported as a null result. The sitting distance is a parameter and the chair moves — swept, the raw difference falls like the cube of it and the residual like the fourth power, and a viewer twenty-nine centimetres from a curved monitor crosses the fusion limit the null result was quoted against.
Three conditions, and three prices
A matched picture needs the seat, the horizontal scale and the vertical law all at once. Each is broken alone here with the other two held, and all three turn out to be linear in the mismatch — the unforgiving case, with no margin at all. The vertical law costs a third of an arcminute on a television and eighty-four on a dome, because it is the difference between an angle and its tangent and that difference is cubic in the picture's vertical field.
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.
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.
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.
Two distances to infinity
A parallel projection is the limit of a perspective one, and the limit arrives twice. Which faces get painted settles within three object radii, because a face is either round the back or it is not; where each mark lands falls like one over the distance and is still out at thirty-four. Far enough away has two answers an order of magnitude apart.
A square plan is not a cube
An even-handed two-point cube is square in plan wherever its far edges go, and a cube at exactly one placement — 19.4 per cent of the way to each vanishing point on the layout measured. At the taught drawing's 42 per cent it is a square slab a third as tall as it is wide. Measuring points supply that placement, and they do not make a hand exact; they move its slip to marks where it costs a tenth as much.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
ResidualAsymptoticsAttributionHorizonTransversalArcminuteCross-ratioError termFalsifiabilityIdentifiabilityPower lawProjective invariant