Standards For Detection of Geometric Shapes

silylene old · Jan 21, 2006

for MaxtheKnife, here are some references. I do suggest you need to raise the depth of analysis before making any conclusion about the existance of geometric figures on Mars. Here are three articles I found to be useful, though difficult to understand. Need to be an IEEE member for the full 50 page pdf: Detection of geometric shapes by the combination of genetic algorithm and subpixel accuracy Yaodong Wang; Funakubo, N.; Pattern Recognition, 1996., Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Volume 4, 25-29 Aug. 1996 Page(s):535 - 539 vol.4 Abstract: Detecting specific shape from image is an important problem in computer vision. A minimal subset is the smallest number of points (pixels) necessary to define an unique instance of a geometric primitive. To extract certain type of geometric primitives genetic algorithm has been studied. However in that method, it doesn't go far enough to detection accuracy, convergent speed and simultaneous detection of multiple shapes. In this paper, we proposed a new approach that improves detection accuracy and convergent speed for geometric shapes by the combination of genetic algorithm and subpixel accuracy (GA&SA). We also presented an algorithm to be able to implement simultaneous detection of multiple shapes based on standardized cost function and similarity between instances, taking advantage of genetic algorithm with “population search”. In addition we have confirmed these practical usefulness through some experiments. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/search/wrapper.jsp?arnumber=547622 +++++++++++++++ 47 page pdf, absrtact follows: Near-Optimal Detection of Geometric Objects by Fast Multiscale Methods Ery Arias-Castro a, David Donoho a, Xiaoming Huo b August 18, 2003 Abstract We construct detectors for ‘geometric’ objects in noisy d <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function. </div> </div>

bonzelite · Jan 21, 2006

like someone else suggested, the only way to conclusively decipher the geometric shape issues on mars, which do exist, is to have a team of archaeologists and geologists dig there. there are compelling geometric formations there, most notably pyramids. personally, i am skeptical of ET, but who knows. i do doubt, too, that any space agency present or in the near future will ever devote an entire mission to such a cause, as it is in the realm of quack science.

harmonicaman · Jan 22, 2006

Yevaud - I read your rebuttal to my assertion that you were adding unwarranted information to your Top View solution and acting like the "Mars Face" crowd; I think you make some valid points. Here's how a triangular solution would look: <big>Top View:</big> <center>0000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000 00000000000000000 000000000000000 0000000000000 00000000000 000000000 0000000 00000 000 0</center> Much better! Now you are starting to think outside the box -- which is the point of this little exercise! The only issue now is the matter of the triangle's apex (bottom of Top View above)... This vertice isn't indicated in the Front View, so why create one in the Top View? What possible geometric shape could you use for the Top View that doesn't have this sharp edge in the middle of the front side? (Trying to breakup the object and treating it like 3 separate pieces also tends to add unnecessary complications such as unindicated lines and edges.) Hints: Continue to think "Outside the Box" and keep it simple. What are you looking at here???

yevaud · Jan 23, 2006

H-man: Ok, that sounds fair. However, my problem with the triangular shape is the "as seen from the front view," which would look like: 0000000000|0000000000 0000000000|0000000000 0000000000|0000000000 0000000000|0000000000 0000000000|0000000000 0000000000|0000000000 You would be able to see the edge of the vertex in the front view. But as well, if thae same triangle was shown from a side and rear view, you wouldn't be able to tell it was triangular. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

harmonicaman · Jan 23, 2006

Yevaud - That's absolutely correct! The triangle solution has a vertice that isn't in the Front View, so it isn't quite right... I posted another solution after the "Triangle" which has a rounded front and eliminates the offending line, but there is an even more elegant "Correct" Top View solution! Only 2% find it because it requires a rather spectacular intuitive leap -- think out of the box!

CalliArcale · Jan 23, 2006

All right, folks, I just spun off an unrelated tangent about Cydonia. Let us NOT discuss whether Cydonia is artificial here. Let us first establish scientific standards. Then we can open a new thread to apply those standards to Cydonia. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

harmonicaman · Jan 23, 2006

Best solution to the Top View puzzle... Let's review: You were asked to figure out what the Top View of an object would look like when presented with a side and front views. With this limited information can you figure out what you are looking at??? <big>Side View:</big> 000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000 000000000000000000 000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000 <big>Front View:</big> 000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000 0000XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX0000 0000X00000000000000X0000 0000XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX0000 000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000 (Edited for clarification.) Best Answer: With this limited information, the most likely geometric shape of the object turns out to be a cylinder with a notch cut into its front side! By thinking "Out of the Box" you realize the most likely solution for the Top View is a circle: <big>Top View:</big><center>000 00000000000 000000000000000 0000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000 0000000000000000 00000000000 000</center> This solution is the result of a brilliant sudden insight rather than the product of deductive reasoning. This puzzle was presented in classes and lectures by R. Buckminster "Bucky" Fuller and is attributed to him. (I've had to sit through his "Thinking Outside the Box" lecture several tim

yevaud · Jan 23, 2006

Harmonicaman: It seems to me that a curved front portion object wouldn't meet the possibles in the show left side / front view original premise (note that I have omitted the "cutout" into the front, for the sake of clarity. Not enough room). The Illustration, below: From the top view, the frontal curve is obvious. Yet, from both the front and rear views, you couldn't even tell it *was* curved. But look at the left side view, drawn using orthographic projection. Note that the curve *does* show visible evidence of it's existance - because the curve begins and extends beyond where the flat left side ends. The final drawing, indicated by the red downward arrow, shows what a true left side view would be to the viewer. Finally, though, if there was a gentle transition from the flat left side to the curved portion, this would *not* apply, as there would be no clean transition from the flat portion to the curved portion. But if this *was* the case, then it is possible that if the curve at the front was sufficient, you would be able to see the (omitted) cutout into the front, from the side. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

maxtheknife · Jan 23, 2006

You see, Calli.... Either they can't or they won't. Simply because, if they do, it will lead them down that slippery slope of AOC.

harmonicaman · Jan 23, 2006

Yevaud - Yeah, the whole point of the problem is to illustrate how limited information can lead to wildly incorrect conclusions as to what it is we're seeing! I really like that drawing you posted, I wish I could do that! It really makes things very clear...

yevaud · Jan 23, 2006

Harmonicaman: Actually, it took 5 minutes, using MSPaint. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

CalliArcale · Jan 23, 2006

Max, this is your chance to demonstrate whether or not your threads about Cydonian geometry have any merit in a science forum -- by demonstrating whether or not you are willing to set or accept scientific standards for the search. You skipped that step before. If you skip it again, despite this open invitation, I don't think you'll convince very many people that your side has any merit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

harmonicaman · Jan 23, 2006

(Oops, this post got misplaced...) Here's a good correct answer to the Top View puzzle: <big>Top View:</big><center>000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000 0000000000000000 00000000000 000</center> By getting completely away from "Squaremindedness" and curving the front side, you have eliminated the unindicated edge and the problem is solved. Most people in the field of engineering and architecture submit this form as the answer to the Top View problem and it indicates how they went about creating a solution in a very systematic way. First a "Square" view, which doesn't quite work; then a "Triangle", which also has problems; and finally, aha!, an intuitive leap to the fact that the front face must be curved! But is this the most difinitive solution??? Although this Top View is "Correct", there's an even more elegant answer! Only two percent of people who work this puzzle are open minded enough to divine the ingenious "Best" answer -- all the clues are there now... <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

mikeemmert · Jan 23, 2006

click here (edited for better display)

silylene old · Jan 23, 2006

I posted many articles and links to established statistical and mathematical criteria for identifying geometric figures in aerial photography. I have seen no evidence that Max has read them, or is interested in learning more. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function. </div> </div>

yevaud · Jan 23, 2006

No, but every picture at his site has now been "Orthorectified." I have already asked him "How did you do this?" He has failed to answer. Unless he knows some flavor of capable GIS package, it isn't really possible. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

maxtheknife · Jan 24, 2006

No, Calli. It isn't my chance. Its yours.

mikeemmert · Jan 24, 2006

Hi, CalliArcale; I read this this morning in the New York Times weekly Science section. This link may require registration. (Yes, you get spam when you do; I found it takes a couple of weeks to get it down to an acceptable level by deleting repeaters. I thought it was worth it just for the science section.) For those opposed to commercial enterprise, some excerpts: "Some journal editors are considering adopting a test, in use at The Journal of Cell Biology, that could have caught the concocted images of the human embryonic stem cells made by Dr. Hwang Woo Suk. At The Journal of Cell Biology, the test has revealed extensive manipulation of photos. Since 2002, when the test was put in place, 25 percent of all accepted manuscripts have had one or more illustrations that were manipulated in ways that violate the journal's guidelines, said Michael Rossner of Rockefeller University, the executive editor. The editor of the journal, Ira Mellman of Yale, said that most cases were resolved when the authors provided originals. "In 1 percent of the cases we find authors have engaged in fraud," he said."... "...nothing should be done to any part of an illustration that did not affect all other parts equally. In other words, it is all right to adjust the brightness or color balance of the whole photo, but not to obscure, move or introduce an element... "They started checking illustrations in accepted manuscripts by running them through Photoshop and adjusting the controls to see if new features appeared... "...Dr. Farid is developing a package of algorithms designed to spot specific types of image manipulation. When researchers seek to remove an object from an image, such as a band from a gel, they often hide it with a patch of nearby background. This involves a duplication o

Standards For Detection of Geometric Shapes

silylene old

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

harmonicaman

Guest

yevaud

Guest

harmonicaman

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

harmonicaman

Guest

yevaud

Guest

maxtheknife

Guest

harmonicaman

Guest

yevaud

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

harmonicaman

Guest

mikeemmert

Guest

silylene old

Guest

yevaud

Guest

maxtheknife

Guest

mikeemmert

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page