Skip to main content

Ambiguous Objects using Mathematical Functions

 Ambiguous: open to more than one interpretation; having a double meaning (according to the Oxford Dictionary). You typically use this adjective in an English or art class rather than a math class because literature and artwork can sometimes have multiple meanings or viewpoints. But not math. Two plus two is always four. The square root of nine is always three. And a function always results in that specific graph. I think that’s why I’ve always had a certain liking to math because it was always direct and to the point with not a lot of room for interpretation. However, by this week’s project, my mind has been blown by the ability to use math functions to create an ambiguous object.

Before we get into the math for the object, I’d also like to point out a real-world example of ambiguous objects, optical illusions. They use the same method that we are going to use by find a shared visual point or line that forces the audience to view one thing or the other. Have you ever been left starting at an optical illusion wondering why you can’t see both options? That’s why.

The goal of this ambiguous object is to view the object from one side to see one function, then view it from the other side to view the other function. But how does that work? We are going to use two functions, their parameterization, and perspective to build this ambiguous object.

First, we start with our two parameterized curves.

 







 






Observer 1 thinks they will see and observer 2 thinks they will see . We assume that each view will be looking at the object at a 45-degree angle and far enough away to treat the entire curve as a specific point. We assume the parameterization of these curves, r(t), will give the floating curve which will allow the object to be seen differently from the two different perspectives. Let’s find an expression for r(t) for the floating curve that will combine the two points of vision for these curves.

We will need to find the equation ra(s) through and parallel to <0,1,1> and the parameterization. We will also need to find the same thing for the second curve; the equation rb(t) through and parallel to <0,-1,1> . The results are and .

We now set these equations equal to each other and solve for the point of intersection.

Then plug s and t back into the parameterizations and get our final parameterization of the floating curve. This will represent our top curve and will form each function depending on the viewpoint.

We continue to build the function into and object.

If you look, you can see what function each observer’s perspective will see. Observer one will see the curve for f(x).


Observer 2 will see the curve for g(x). 


(Note: the rectangle at the bottom is used as a platform for the object and tells the observers to always view it from the longer side.)

I chose this object and these functions because I enjoy working with trig functions as they always surprise me with the different curves they can make. I also wanted to see how two completely different curves would show in a 3D object and how distinct they will be for each viewer. For example, one curve has distinct directional changes and is duplicated in all four quadrants, while the other curve is a single line function. 




 


 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Finding an object's center of mass using integration

Thinking about center of mass As a kid, I would sit in class and balance my pencil on my finger. What I didn't know then was that I was finding the pencil's center of mass. An object's center of mass is a point where the average weight of the object lies. In other words, the weighted position vectors of the object at this point sum to zero (source: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/center-of-mass ). The exact location of this point can be found using calculus. First, it is important to understand the moment . The moment for a two-dimensional object is given with respect to both the x- and y-axes. It is a physical characteristic of the object a certain distance from these axes. It's easiest to think about the axes as reference points for where the characteristic acts; in this case, where the mass is distributed. When computing these moments, the hardest concept to grasp is that the moment with respect to y, for example, is given by the x-coordinat...
Post a Comment
Read more

Finding the Center of Mass of a Toy Boat

Consider two people who visit the gym a substantial amount. One is a girl who loves to lift weights and bench press as much as she possibly can. The other is a guy who focuses much more on his legs, trying to break the world record for squat weight. It just so happens that these two are the same height and have the exact same weight, but the center of their weight is not in the same part of their body. This is because the girl has much more weight in the top half of her body and the boy has more weight in the bottom half. This difference in center of mass is a direct result of the different distributions of mass throughout both of their bodies. Moments and Mass There are two main components to finding the center of mass of an object. The first, unsurprisingly, is the mass of the whole object. In this case of the boat example, the mass will be uniform throughout the entire object. This is ideal a majority of the time as it drastically reduces the difficulty...
Post a Comment
Read more

Do Over: Integration Over a Region in a Plane

Throughout the semester we have covered a variety of topics and how their mathematical orientation applies to real world scenarios. One topic we discussed, and I would like to revisit, is integration over a region in a plane which involves calculating a double integral. Integrating functions of two variables allows us to calculate the volume under the function in a 3D space. You can see a more in depth description and my previous example in my blog post, https://ukyma391.blogspot.com/2021/09/integration-for-over-regions-in-plane_27.html . I want to revisit this topic because in my previous attempt my volume calculations were incorrect, and my print lacked structural stability. I believed this print and calculation was the topic I could most improve on and wanted to give it another chance. What needed Improvement? The function used previously was f(x) = cos(xy) bounded on [-3,3] x [-1,3]. After solving for the estimated and actual volume, it was difficult to represent in a print...
Post a Comment
Read more