play and relax: games for kids games
  Cut the knot: learn to enjoy mathematics
A math books store at a unique math study site. Learn to enjoy mathematics.
Google
Web CTK
Best sites for teachers
Sites for teachers
Sites for parents
Terms of use
Awards

Interactive Activities
CTK Exchange
CTK Insights - a blog

Games & Puzzles
What Is What
Arithmetic/Algebra
Geometry
Probability
Outline Mathematics
Make an Identity
Book Reviews
Eye Opener
Analog Gadgets
Inventor's Paradox
Did you know?...
Proofs
Math as Language
Things Impossible
Visual Illusions
My Logo
Math Poll
Cut The Knot!
MSET99 Talk
Other Math sites
Front Page
Movie shortcuts
Personal info
Privacy Policy

Guest book
News sites

Recommend this site

Best sites for teachers
Sites for teachers
Sites for parents

Education & Parenting

Manifesto: what CTK is about Search CTK Buying a book is a commitment to learning Table of content Things you can find on CTK Chronology of updates Email to Cut The Knot Recommend this page
Subject: Random dot stereograms and Single-image stereograms
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 19:45:35 -0500
From: Scott E. Brodie

Dear Alex,

Happy Thanksgiving.

I was looking at your new page which includes mentions of random-dot stereograms, and includes a illustration of a single-image steroegram.

Your abbreviated example blurs the distinction between two aspects of the illusion: the use of random dots to encode stereoscopic disparity is credited to Bela Julesz (then at Bell Labs), and originally was demonstrated with standard stereoscopic viewing, with a complete, separate image presented to each eye simultaneously. This presentation is a "random dot stereogram".

Quite another matter is the "single-image stereogram", where a single quasi-periodic image, creates a stereoscopic illusion when viewed with altered ocular alignment. The quasi-periodic image can be composed of "random dots" (as is your example), or of larger image elements. This presentation is generally credited to Christopher Tyler, of the Smith-Kettlewell Eye Research Institute in San Francisco.

As a co-author of a paper with Julesz, and an acquaintance and vision-research colleague of Tyler, I feel it my duty to point out the distinction. Perhaps it would be a public service for you to point out the distinction, and, if possible, give credit to the original innovators.

Best regards,

Scott.

[Am still trying to see where your construction for doubling the cube breaks the rules!]

Scott E.Brodie New York

Copyright © 1996-2008 Alexander Bogomolny

29400301Page copy protected against web site content infringement by Copyscape


Search:
Keywords:


Latest on CTK Exchange
try this puzzle ?/?? + ?/?? + ?/? ...
Posted by albert1950
0 messages
07:05 AM, Jul-10-08

Monty Hall Problem
Posted by linkdon
71 messages
03:06 PM, Jul-18-08

Missing information
Posted by roboknight
2 messages
07:32 AM, Jun-22-08

Golden Number linked to 666
Posted by Titus
4 messages
02:53 PM, Jul-19-08

Mistake on the page (an aside, Be ...
Posted by Max
4 messages
10:28 AM, Feb-28-08

trisection of an angle
Posted by Pytheus
2 messages
06:39 AM, Jul-14-08

You can drill a square hole
Posted by Giorgis
1 messages
10:15 PM, Jul-12-08