Images that do not reflect the material

I was recently chastised by a <name removed on request> about my posts pointing out that the posted online history of stereology is muddled. It is as I have shown in the last 3 posts.

I also noticed that the artwork that goes with these historical posts is also quite off the mark.

Consider the image posted with the Cavalieri comments. It shows an object sectioned uniformly at a distance T. Cavalieri never did that. What is missing that is an essential part of the Cavalieri process is the height of the object shown next to an object of the same height.

Next to Delesse are 3 images. The images are labeled Delesse, Rosiwal, and Glagolev. The lines are straight. Rosiwal used paths and some of them were curved. The lines intersect. Rosiwal thought that his method required that the lines had to be far enough apart to avoid sampling any rock particle by more than 1 line. Finally Glagolev used a single point for his sampling. Glagolev did not invent point counting. He invented a machine to do point counting. In fact, his microscope point counting machine allowed counting rates close to what modern motorized stereological systems can offer.

The Buffon image shows an interesting situation. Buffon was prone to giving solutions without showing the derivation. This parquet floor is one of the problems where Buffon was wrong. His solution for the orthogonal lines is not correct. The correct solution was given by LaPlace in 1814, well after the death of Buffon. LaPlace did not name the origin of the problem so Buffon is not mentioned.

Good images support the story, not add more mud to the waters.

Advertisements

3 Responses to “Images that do not reflect the material”

  1. stereologist Says:

    The history is not as I see it. It is decidable whether or not Buffon gave his presentation in 1733. It is decidable what the Cavalieri theorem states. It is decidable what Delesse’s first name is. It is decidable whether or not the images are appropriate for the text.

    Your objection has nothing to do with the facts. Better research would avoid such glaring mistakes. Maybe there was no research. That is a possibility. Many mistakes are made by guessing.

    I doubt you have ever looked at a copy of your references. Specifically:
    3. Buffon G.L. Compte de (1977) Essai darithmetique morale. Suplement al Historie Naturelle, Vol. 4, Paris, Impremarie Royale.
    6. Cavalieri, B (1635) Geometria Indivisilibus Continuorum. Typis Clementis Bonoiae. Reprinted 1966 as Geometris degli Indivisibili. Union Tipografico-Editrice, Torinese, Torino.
    9. Delesse, M.A. (1847) Procede mecanique pour determiner la composition des roches. Compte-Rendus d Academie des Sciences, Paris, 25, 544-545.

    Is it normal to list references that have never been seen, let alone read?

  2. Anonymous Says:

    If you do not cease and desist posting my name and the name of my company in this website, I will sue you.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: