The thread: Determined up to something — page 7
The lamp and the floor cannot both be recovered
Every member of a one-parameter family of lamp-and-floor pairs draws the identical photograph to a fraction of a thousandth of a pixel — one member swings the lamp 90 cm and tilts the floor 4.3° and the picture does not move at all. A tape measure or a post of known height each pin the true member uniquely, and so does a wall known in advance to be square to the floor, whose angle to the recovered floor peaks at exactly 90° at μ = 1.000 and nowhere else; a receiver merely known to be parallel drifts thirteen times more weakly.
What survivesThe picture contains what is behind the camera
A pinhole maps a direction, and a line has one direction, so a point behind the eye lands on exactly the same mark as its reflection in front — here to 6.4e-14 pixels. The sign the division throws away is why cheirality is a fact supplied from outside the picture rather than measured in it.
Drawn confidentlyThe rule is exact for a floor that lengthens
The constant-ratio rule for spacing receding boards is an exact perspective — to the last digit, on the panel's own horizon — of a floor whose boards grow by the inverse of the ratio, 0.74 braccia deep at the front and 1.31 at the back on an eight-braccio pavement. The orthogonals agree with that floor. What says the tiles were meant to be square is a diagonal, which bends 8.1 pixels off straight where the reader's fitting test finds a sixth of one.
Drawn confidentlyA straightedge convicts the rule on five braccia
The constant-ratio rule for spacing a pavement's boards leaves one mark a correct construction does not: its tile corners bow off the diagonal. The worry was that a painter's hand would bury the bow in its own scatter. At a pixel of scatter it does not, on any pavement of five braccia or more. What limits the test is not the hand but the page: a pavement drawn to one width bows no more at twenty braccia than at eight, while the hand's wander keeps growing with every tile.