Re: The TRIRADIUS in a fingerprint: how it develops, it's characteristics + a definition!

**Martijn (admin)** Sat Apr 30, 2011 2:28 pm

Patti wrote:
Martijn (admin) wrote:
Patti wrote:
Martijn (admin) wrote:
Patti wrote:You are also incorrect about the FBI. The triangular plot is all over the place in the figures. Including the first one with the 2 fields and the lake.

They explain you must get this concept of the delta or you'll mess up.

You're still messing up.

lol

Hi Patti,

I think nowhere in the F.B.I. is any comment made about any 'triangular' shape in the ridges. So the examples where there is any such shape seen... they allows simply follow the path of the rules (+ the principles related to the river delta) - which are unrelated to any 'triangular' shape at all.

But agian, also in the work of Schaumann & Alter the concept of the 'triangular plot' is not seen at all.

And you should really not underestimate the fact that in Cummins & Midlo the concept of the 'triangular plot' is only described in the perspective of Galton's theory, and on page 58 they describe in their comments about the definition that in the (practical) usage they do not discriminate the 'triangular plot' from your 'star-triangle':

"In the usage here adopted no discrimination is made between these two main forms of structural organization. Since a triradius is present even when there is no true delta, the term triradius is used througout this work."

Therefore formally one should better not speak about just 2 'different' types of triradii - because none of the books have made such a recommendation.

I think it makes sense if we continue in our discussion to use the label 'triangular triradius', but I am not going to adopt your suggestion of a 'star-triradius'... because that sounds to me quite like describing a... 'round ball'.

I hope you understand.

Schaumann & Alter describe this triangular shape on page 34 regarding Fig. D, E & F.

Patti, in the underlined comment Schaumann & Alter are clearly referring to figure 3.5 E + F... and in both examples there is no 'triangular plot'!

And there is no 'triangular shape' in figure 3.5 D either.

(Your choice suggests that you associate the word 'triangular shape'... with a 'triradial area', which you called a 'triradial shape' ... but both are not the same at all.)

Cummins & Midlo, Schaumann & Alter, Penrose, Wilder, Wentworth, Galton and the FBI all describe a triangular shape in the triradial area. You are the only one who can't see it (or doesn't want to see it). Loesch could see it but chose not to work with it for her specialized purposes.

Patti... while you continue to talk about 'triangular shape' (which by the way requires angles of 60 degrees), you are still referring to passages where Schaumann & Alter only talk about the 'triradial area' (angles of 120 degrees).

And meanwhile my words get ignored (including my earlier comments about e.g. the 'triradial shape' in Cummins & Midlo's work).. and I get confronted with rethorics which do not relate to what the books by fact describe at all, and claims about me being 'the only one...' while Lynn has expressed as well multiple times that she can not understand either why you continue to add phantasy-triangles in your considerations & aguments.

scratch

Patti Sat Apr 30, 2011 3:10 pm

Martijn (admin) wrote:
Patti wrote:The bifurcation in Kiwi's fingerprint is disqualified as it has two lower ridges with an angle of less than 90 degrees (unless you use your deceptive method of bending your lines down to the true location of the radiants)

Patti, what you call a 'deceptive method'... is formally what Penrose told us to do: measuring the angle between the radiants. And the radiants do not stop at 1 mm from the bifurcation!

You won't find an illustration anywhere that shows that you should use a bifurcation with branches less than 90 degrees apart from which to trace the radiants - except for your illustration. If you find one, I'd be happy to see it.

Patti Sat Apr 30, 2011 3:13 pm

Martijn (admin) wrote:
Patti wrote:
Martijn (admin) wrote:
Patti wrote:
Martijn (admin) wrote:
Patti wrote:You are also incorrect about the FBI. The triangular plot is all over the place in the figures. Including the first one with the 2 fields and the lake.

They explain you must get this concept of the delta or you'll mess up.

You're still messing up.

lol

Hi Patti,

I think nowhere in the F.B.I. is any comment made about any 'triangular' shape in the ridges. So the examples where there is any such shape seen... they allows simply follow the path of the rules (+ the principles related to the river delta) - which are unrelated to any 'triangular' shape at all.

But agian, also in the work of Schaumann & Alter the concept of the 'triangular plot' is not seen at all.

And you should really not underestimate the fact that in Cummins & Midlo the concept of the 'triangular plot' is only described in the perspective of Galton's theory, and on page 58 they describe in their comments about the definition that in the (practical) usage they do not discriminate the 'triangular plot' from your 'star-triangle':

"In the usage here adopted no discrimination is made between these two main forms of structural organization. Since a triradius is present even when there is no true delta, the term triradius is used througout this work."

Therefore formally one should better not speak about just 2 'different' types of triradii - because none of the books have made such a recommendation.

I think it makes sense if we continue in our discussion to use the label 'triangular triradius', but I am not going to adopt your suggestion of a 'star-triradius'... because that sounds to me quite like describing a... 'round ball'.

I hope you understand.

Schaumann & Alter describe this triangular shape on page 34 regarding Fig. D, E & F.

Patti, in the underlined comment Schaumann & Alter are clearly referring to figure 3.5 E + F... and in both examples there is no 'triangular plot'!

And there is no 'triangular shape' in figure 3.5 D either.

(Your choice suggests that you associate the word 'triangular shape'... with a 'triradial area', which you called a 'triradial shape' ... but both are not the same at all.)

Cummins & Midlo, Schaumann & Alter, Penrose, Wilder, Wentworth, Galton and the FBI all describe a triangular shape in the triradial area. You are the only one who can't see it (or doesn't want to see it). Loesch could see it but chose not to work with it for her specialized purposes.

Patti... while you continue to talk about 'triangular shape' (which by the way requires angles of 60 degrees), you are still referring to passages where Schaumann & Alter only talk about the 'triradial area' (angles of 120 degrees).

And meanwhile my words get ignored (including my earlier comments about e.g. the 'triradial shape' in Cummins & Midlo's work).. and I get confronted with rethorics which do not relate to what the books by fact describe at all, and claims about me being 'the only one...' while Lynn has expressed as well multiple times that she can not understand either why you continue to add phantasy-triangles in your considerations & aguments.

Maybe you should quote from Lynn or let her speak for herself. I think she agrees about 2 ~~triradius~~ triradii, a triangular shaped one and a star shaped one.

Patti Sat Apr 30, 2011 3:20 pm

Martijn (admin) wrote:
So formally, Kiwihands' bifurcation has all typical charteristics of a 'triradius' - except for that two of the radiants start with a angle a bit smaller than 90 degrees, but the angle becomes wider as their path continues.... and that is really THE essential of a triradius... because this is how the 'confluence' of three ridge systems typically is created.

[/color]

This is what I call deception. Penrose clearly states less than 90 degrees disqualifies the configuration as a triradius.

Kiwi's is less than 90 degrees.

You have no authority or right to change the rules so that you can justify your idea of a bifurcation as the only form of triradius.

The obvious reason the path of the two lower branches are able to be drawn in such a way is because this bifurcation is the distal angle of the TRIANGULAR TRIRADIUS. You are merely drawing your lines down to the marginal and proximal angles of that TRIANGLE.

A bifurcation is can be the meeting of two fields. A triradius is the meeting of three fields.

For you to argue that the bifurcation is the correct location for a triradius, when that bifurcation fails to qualify, is beyond belief!

wave

Patti Sat Apr 30, 2011 4:35 pm

Triangular Triradius

The TRIRADIUS in a fingerprint: how it develops, it's characteristics + a definition! - Page 12 3-12-215

The triradial area is marked in yellow.
The triradial point is inside the dotted circle
The triradius is made of the 3 innermost ridges from 3 different fields, 2 blue and 1 green colored.

There is no *Y* formation. This is not a Star triradius. It is a Delta triradius, in the most commonly found triangular formation. A geometric result is based on 3 curving fields meeting at a central point. Enviromental effects, such as uneven tensions and/or growth, can alter the perfection of this meeting of three fields.

**Lynn** Sat Apr 30, 2011 4:58 pm

Patti wrote:
Martijn (admin) wrote: while Lynn has expressed as well multiple times that she can not understand either why you continue to add phantasy-triangles in your considerations & aguments.

Maybe you should quote from Lynn or let her speak for herself. I think she agrees about 2 ~~triradius~~ triradii, a triangular shaped one and a star shaped one.

Actually Patti, Martijn's correct, I have expressed a few times that I prefer to look at what is actually there rather than 'imagined' drawn-in green radiants or yellow triangles!

And you are correct that I think the books describe two different types of triradius - what we are calling 'star' shape, and C&M 'delta' = triangle shape.

Patti Sat Apr 30, 2011 5:19 pm

Thanks Lynn.

I know both of you have problems with me actually drawing the 'idea' of the triangle in the triradial area.

From my interpretation, of a number of sources, this 'visualization' is necessary.

So while I recognize it's not something that works for you as an individual, it is not an incorrect process.

Thanks for clearly stating that you see two types of triradii, a star and a triangle shape.

**Martijn (admin)** Sat Apr 30, 2011 5:24 pm

Lynn wrote:
Patti wrote:
Martijn (admin) wrote: while Lynn has expressed as well multiple times that she can not understand either why you continue to add phantasy-triangles in your considerations & aguments.

Maybe you should quote from Lynn or let her speak for herself. I think she agrees about 2 ~~triradius~~ triradii, a triangular shaped one and a star shaped one.

Actually Patti, Martijn's correct, I have expressed a few times that I prefer to look at what is actually there rather than 'imagined' drawn-in green radiants or yellow triangles!

And you are correct that I think the books describe two different types of triradius - what we are calling 'star' shape, and C&M 'delta' = triangle shape.

Hi Lynn,

Thanks for confirming my point about Patti's phatasy-triangles.

Regarding your second comment, you mentioned 'the books'. But I don't think that the 'triangle shape' is mentioned in all scientific books - including: Schaumann & Alter, and Loesch.

Can you find any such comment in Schaumann & Alter in which they mention a 'triangle' or 'triangular shape' or a likewise alternative?

PS. If you can't find any such comments in Schaumann & Alter as well, then I think that would illustrate that it is really useless to talk about 2 types of triradii. I can only hope that this question makes sense for you regarding what I am suggesting here.

**Lynn** Sat Apr 30, 2011 5:39 pm

I didn't say "all the books" ;-) I don't have Schaumann & Alter's book, nor Penrose.

Even if Schaumann & Alter don't mention the triangle, I don't understand why you are insisting that it is really useless to talk about 2 types of triradii.

C&M clearly describe the delta triangle. I know they do not discriminate between them in practice, but they clearly state say "In the usage here adopted no discrimination is made between these two main forms of structural organisation."

**Martijn (admin)** Sat Apr 30, 2011 6:08 pm

Patti wrote:
Martijn (admin) wrote:
So formally, Kiwihands' bifurcation has all typical charteristics of a 'triradius' - except for that two of the radiants start with a angle a bit smaller than 90 degrees, but the angle becomes wider as their path continues.... and that is really THE essential of a triradius... because this is how the 'confluence' of three ridge systems typically is created.

[/color]

This is what I call deception. Penrose clearly states less than 90 degrees disqualifies the configuration as a triradius.

Kiwi's is less than 90 degrees.

You have no authority or right to change the rules so that you can justify your idea of a bifurcation as the only form of triradius.

The obvious reason the path of the two lower branches are able to be drawn in such a way is because this bifurcation is the distal angle of the TRIANGULAR TRIRADIUS. You are merely drawing your lines down to the marginal and proximal angles of that TRIANGLE.

A bifurcation is can be the meeting of two fields. A triradius is the meeting of three fields.

For you to argue that the bifurcation is the correct location for a triradius, when that bifurcation fails to qualify, is beyond belief!

Patti, I think the problem here is that Penrose did not describe HOW exactly to measure the angle between two radiants!

Because nearly all radiants make some kind of a 'curve'... especially at the location close to the triradial point!

For example:

If in a bifurcation the two bifurcating ridges start with an angle of 90 degrees, and then continue as two parallel ridges... we can simply call it a typical example of fork.

Then, would the 90 degrees at the biginning matter?
Or should one focuss on the fact the the two ridge continue parallel... which makes the angle between the ridges close to 0 degrees?

(I think the observation regarding the angle between the ridges just after the bifurcation point is irrelevant)

And the more we continue focussing on these details, the more I am inclined to say that the F.B.I. made a brilliant choice by choosing no longer to word with the concept of the 'triradius'. Because beyond the fact that the advanced definitions are hard to understand properly... the requirement regarding the angles could even be described as 'arbitrary'!

Finally, regarding your word choice 'This is what I call deception'... I think this just illustrates that you were not able to understand the intend of my words (yet).

Because I have clearly described that I do recognize that at the beginning the angle between THE RADIANTS (!) is smaller than 90 degrees, but I have describe that the angle becomes larger as these ridge progress. And then followed my conclusion.

So the angle of the radiants varies... that is only a fact!
And Penrose certainly didn't describe what to do in such situations!

Therefore I think that word-choice does not add anything to this discussion. And the words that followed did not really relate to the details that I had described either.

And for me it is unacceptable if my efforts are continued being described as an act of 'deception'. I hope that you can understand that it is frustrating to be confronted with this word.

Patti Sat Apr 30, 2011 6:18 pm

The TRIRADIUS in a fingerprint: how it develops, it's characteristics + a definition! - Page 12 Schaum11

The triradius on the right side of example G is the same as Fig. 3.5 E

The TRIRADIUS in a fingerprint: how it develops, it's characteristics + a definition! - Page 12 3-12-216

The TRIRADIUS in a fingerprint: how it develops, it's characteristics + a definition! - Page 12 3-12-216

Patti Sat Apr 30, 2011 6:30 pm

Martijn (admin) wrote:
Patti wrote:
Martijn (admin) wrote:
So formally, Kiwihands' bifurcation has all typical charteristics of a 'triradius' - except for that two of the radiants start with a angle a bit smaller than 90 degrees, but the angle becomes wider as their path continues.... and that is really THE essential of a triradius... because this is how the 'confluence' of three ridge systems typically is created.

[/color]

This is what I call deception. Penrose clearly states less than 90 degrees disqualifies the configuration as a triradius.

Kiwi's is less than 90 degrees.

You have no authority or right to change the rules so that you can justify your idea of a bifurcation as the only form of triradius.

The obvious reason the path of the two lower branches are able to be drawn in such a way is because this bifurcation is the distal angle of the TRIANGULAR TRIRADIUS. You are merely drawing your lines down to the marginal and proximal angles of that TRIANGLE.

A bifurcation is can be the meeting of two fields. A triradius is the meeting of three fields.

For you to argue that the bifurcation is the correct location for a triradius, when that bifurcation fails to qualify, is beyond belief!

Patti, I think the problem here is that Penrose did not describe HOW exactly to measure the angle between two radiants!

Because nearly all radiants make some kind of a 'curve'... especially at the location close to the triradial point!

For example:

If in a bifurcation the two bifurcating ridges start with an angle of 90 degrees, and then continue as two parallel ridges... we can simply call it a typical example of fork.

Then, would the 90 degrees at the biginning matter?
Or should one focuss on the fact the the two ridge continue parallel... which makes the angle between the ridges close to 0 degrees?

(I think the observation regarding the angle between the ridges just after the bifurcation point is irrelevant)

And the more we continue focussing on these details, the more I am inclined to say that the F.B.I. made a brilliant choice by choosing no longer to word with the concept of the 'triradius'. Because beyond the fact that the advanced definitions are hard to understand properly... the requirement regarding the angles could even be described as 'arbitrary'!

Finally, regarding your word choice 'This is what I call deception'... I think this just illustrates that you were not able to understand the intend of my words (yet).

Because I have clearly described that I do recognize that at the beginning the angle between THE RADIANTS (!) is smaller than 90 degrees, but I have describe that the angle becomes larger as these ridge progress. And then followed my conclusion.

So the angle of the radiants varies... that is only a fact!
And Penrose certainly didn't describe what to do in such situations!

Therefore I think that word-choice does not add anything to this discussion. And the words that followed did not really relate to the details that I had described either.

And for me it is unacceptable if my efforts are continued being described as an act of 'deception'. I hope that you can understand that it is frustrating to be confronted with this word.

I just don't understand why you ignore the triangular shape and want to make a Y into the only possible choice of triradius regardless of the fact that the reguirements call for about 120 degrees and a minimum of 90 degrees. You pointed out that the inside of an equilateral triangle was 60 degrees. Kiwi's is less than 60 degrees! So if the inside angle is 60 degrees when speaking of 120 degree angles, the inside angle of a 90 degree measurement of a triangle's angle would be much less than 60 degrees. Kiwi's measures in the mid fifties.

Why would anyone want to insist something qualifies when it clearly doesn't.

Why would anyone bend the entensions of curved lines that follows the outline of curving fields to come up with the inner angle? You know that is just *wrong*.

I find it hard to believe that you can read through all the copies of different early resources, including those that initially described and named the triradii, and deny they are not only describing the "Y" shape, but a triangular shape is well.

How could you be more right than those who designed the concept and that concept has been followed for nearly 100 years?

**Martijn (admin)** Sat Apr 30, 2011 6:34 pm

Lynn wrote:I didn't say "all the books" ;-) I don't have Schaumann & Alter's book, nor Penrose.

Even if Schaumann & Alter don't mention the triangle, I don't understand why you are insisting that it is really useless to talk about 2 types of triradii.

C&M clearly describe the delta triangle. I know they do not discriminate between them in practice, but they clearly state say "In the usage here adopted no discrimination is made between these two main forms of structural organisation."

Lynn, would it make sense to start any agreement about '2 types of triradii'... if we can't even agree about what a triradius really is?

And from the fact that the 'triangular variant' (NOTICE: I am not denying that there is such a variant!) it is NOT even mentioned in Schaumann & Alter, nor in the work of Loesch... that should be enough to know that is not useful at all to start even talking about "THE" two variants!

Secondly, that 'triangular variant' is quite rare.... which probably explains why these books did not mention that variant.

And from my point of view, this 'idea' of 2 types of triradii... origins directly from Patti's phanatasies about triangles. So, I think indirectly ... you are only fueling those 'phanatasies' by joining her in making that 'rare variant' much more important than it really is (in the books, and the frequency of it's prevalence).

So, while you and Patti agree about the 2 types... I observe that Patti is talking about 'phantasy triangles' and you obviously do not agree about that element at all.

And therefore it is actually very hard to see what your agreement REALLY implicates!

Don't you think that is worrisome for the process if this discussion if fundamental disagreements about this issue (the definiton + the phantasies) are followed by agreements about the same issue?

For me this is not a good sign at all, because there appears to be a lot of miscommunication. Illustrated by comments that such that some of the earlier/former 'agreements' were made under pressurce, etc. ... Wink

**Lynn** Sat Apr 30, 2011 7:04 pm

Martijn (admin) wrote:And from my point of view, this 'idea' of 2 types of triradii... origins directly from Patti's phanatasies about triangles. So, I think indirectly ... you are only fueling those 'phanatasies' by joining her in making that 'rare variant' much more important than it really is (in the books, and the frequency of it's prevalence).
[/color]

The idea of two types originates in Cummins & Midlo.

**Martijn (admin)** Sat Apr 30, 2011 7:25 pm

Patti wrote:
Martijn (admin) wrote:
Patti wrote:
Martijn (admin) wrote:
So formally, Kiwihands' bifurcation has all typical charteristics of a 'triradius' - except for that two of the radiants start with a angle a bit smaller than 90 degrees, but the angle becomes wider as their path continues.... and that is really THE essential of a triradius... because this is how the 'confluence' of three ridge systems typically is created.

[/color]

This is what I call deception. Penrose clearly states less than 90 degrees disqualifies the configuration as a triradius.

Kiwi's is less than 90 degrees.

You have no authority or right to change the rules so that you can justify your idea of a bifurcation as the only form of triradius.

The obvious reason the path of the two lower branches are able to be drawn in such a way is because this bifurcation is the distal angle of the TRIANGULAR TRIRADIUS. You are merely drawing your lines down to the marginal and proximal angles of that TRIANGLE.

A bifurcation is can be the meeting of two fields. A triradius is the meeting of three fields.

For you to argue that the bifurcation is the correct location for a triradius, when that bifurcation fails to qualify, is beyond belief!

Patti, I think the problem here is that Penrose did not describe HOW exactly to measure the angle between two radiants!

Because nearly all radiants make some kind of a 'curve'... especially at the location close to the triradial point!

For example:

If in a bifurcation the two bifurcating ridges start with an angle of 90 degrees, and then continue as two parallel ridges... we can simply call it a typical example of fork.

Then, would the 90 degrees at the biginning matter?
Or should one focuss on the fact the the two ridge continue parallel... which makes the angle between the ridges close to 0 degrees?

(I think the observation regarding the angle between the ridges just after the bifurcation point is irrelevant)

And the more we continue focussing on these details, the more I am inclined to say that the F.B.I. made a brilliant choice by choosing no longer to word with the concept of the 'triradius'. Because beyond the fact that the advanced definitions are hard to understand properly... the requirement regarding the angles could even be described as 'arbitrary'!

Finally, regarding your word choice 'This is what I call deception'... I think this just illustrates that you were not able to understand the intend of my words (yet).

Because I have clearly described that I do recognize that at the beginning the angle between THE RADIANTS (!) is smaller than 90 degrees, but I have describe that the angle becomes larger as these ridge progress. And then followed my conclusion.

So the angle of the radiants varies... that is only a fact!
And Penrose certainly didn't describe what to do in such situations!

Therefore I think that word-choice does not add anything to this discussion. And the words that followed did not really relate to the details that I had described either.

And for me it is unacceptable if my efforts are continued being described as an act of 'deception'. I hope that you can understand that it is frustrating to be confronted with this word.

I just don't understand why you ignore the triangular shape and ...

...

How could you be more right than those who designed the concept and that concept has been followed for nearly 100 years?

Patti, I am ignoring your 'triradial shape' completely... because it is in the grooves, and we are told to only look at the ridges!

(You are just continueing to ask the same kind of questions, while the answers are so simple and obvious!)

Regarding your final comment, I am just giving you some feedback on your thoughts & observations... and I can't help it that in your phantasies you translate that into as if I am the first who questions the early definitions given for the triradius. Even while both the vocabulary & the definitions have changed significantly since Galton's publication in the 19th century.

And I think likewise observations preceeded the choice made by the F.B.I. to exclude the concept of the 'triradius' from their approach.

Afterall, my observation regarding the confusion about the concept of the 'triradius' is e.g. illustrate by Ed Campbell's short reference about how the 'triradius' is described in the F.B.I. book ( http://www.edcampbell.com/PalmD-History.htm ):

"An apex is known in dermatoglyphics as a triradius. The FBI calls the triradius the delta, as have a number of fingerprint experts."

Because obviously, we now know that the F.B.I.'s delta is always only a 'point' at a ridge; and therefore it can formally not be described as being representative for a 'triradius', and not even for the 'triradial point' - because a 'triradial point' is not required to be found on a ridge.

So, anyone who really puts some efforts on trying to describe the issue of the 'triradius' properly... is confronted with significant complications!

Patti Sat Apr 30, 2011 7:32 pm

Lynn wrote:
Martijn (admin) wrote:And from my point of view, this 'idea' of 2 types of triradii... origins directly from Patti's phanatasies about triangles. So, I think indirectly ... you are only fueling those 'phanatasies' by joining her in making that 'rare variant' much more important than it really is (in the books, and the frequency of it's prevalence).
[/color]

The idea of two types originates in Cummins & Midlo.

And Cummins & Midlo are quoting from a long list see page 295 and 296 of "Finger Prints Palms & Soles"

Which include Henry, Galton, and Wilder & Wentworth's "Personal Identification", to name a few.

Galton is quoted in "Personal Identification" describing two triradii and referring to them with "either" and "or" terminology. Both have equal regard given them.

Schaumann & Alter illustrate the triangular shape, but do not describe it well. Loesch points out the reason she only chose to work with one model. She was working in a specialized field of biometrics before the computer programs were even "imagined" and influenced strongly by Penrose. Purkinje's observations influenced them all.

**Martijn (admin)** Sat Apr 30, 2011 7:36 pm

Lynn wrote:
Martijn (admin) wrote:And from my point of view, this 'idea' of 2 types of triradii... origins directly from Patti's phanatasies about triangles. So, I think indirectly ... you are only fueling those 'phanatasies' by joining her in making that 'rare variant' much more important than it really is (in the books, and the frequency of it's prevalence).
[/color]

The idea of two types originates in Cummins & Midlo.

No, because Cummins & Midlo only describe the issue of the 'triradial plot' in the perspective of Galton's theory only. And afterwards I think it never shows up in their book again.

But that certainly doesn't mean that they say that there are 'only' 2 types of triradii - as suggested by Patti and adopted by you.

I think Patti's idea is just an 'over-simplifiction', that is not helpful at all (because it includes elements of phantasy). Again, she is only using that 'idea' to continue her phantasies about how triangles develop... but her model doesn't work because she simply ignores what is going on outside her triangles.

Lynn, remember... in the F.B.I. book we have seen that a single 'connection' can me the difference between an arch and a tented arch, or a tented arch and a loop. And likewise comments can be made for the F.B.I.'s core and the delta.

But Patti's model is not featured with any such awareness... about how single ridge details can have implications for the position of a 'triradial point'.

Patti Sat Apr 30, 2011 7:37 pm

Martijn (admin) wrote:
Patti wrote:
Martijn (admin) wrote:
Patti wrote:
Martijn (admin) wrote:
So formally, Kiwihands' bifurcation has all typical charteristics of a 'triradius' - except for that two of the radiants start with a angle a bit smaller than 90 degrees, but the angle becomes wider as their path continues.... and that is really THE essential of a triradius... because this is how the 'confluence' of three ridge systems typically is created.

[/color]

This is what I call deception. Penrose clearly states less than 90 degrees disqualifies the configuration as a triradius.

Kiwi's is less than 90 degrees.

You have no authority or right to change the rules so that you can justify your idea of a bifurcation as the only form of triradius.

The obvious reason the path of the two lower branches are able to be drawn in such a way is because this bifurcation is the distal angle of the TRIANGULAR TRIRADIUS. You are merely drawing your lines down to the marginal and proximal angles of that TRIANGLE.

A bifurcation is can be the meeting of two fields. A triradius is the meeting of three fields.

For you to argue that the bifurcation is the correct location for a triradius, when that bifurcation fails to qualify, is beyond belief!

Patti, I think the problem here is that Penrose did not describe HOW exactly to measure the angle between two radiants!

Because nearly all radiants make some kind of a 'curve'... especially at the location close to the triradial point!

For example:

If in a bifurcation the two bifurcating ridges start with an angle of 90 degrees, and then continue as two parallel ridges... we can simply call it a typical example of fork.

Then, would the 90 degrees at the biginning matter?
Or should one focuss on the fact the the two ridge continue parallel... which makes the angle between the ridges close to 0 degrees?

(I think the observation regarding the angle between the ridges just after the bifurcation point is irrelevant)

And the more we continue focussing on these details, the more I am inclined to say that the F.B.I. made a brilliant choice by choosing no longer to word with the concept of the 'triradius'. Because beyond the fact that the advanced definitions are hard to understand properly... the requirement regarding the angles could even be described as 'arbitrary'!

Finally, regarding your word choice 'This is what I call deception'... I think this just illustrates that you were not able to understand the intend of my words (yet).

Because I have clearly described that I do recognize that at the beginning the angle between THE RADIANTS (!) is smaller than 90 degrees, but I have describe that the angle becomes larger as these ridge progress. And then followed my conclusion.

So the angle of the radiants varies... that is only a fact!
And Penrose certainly didn't describe what to do in such situations!

Therefore I think that word-choice does not add anything to this discussion. And the words that followed did not really relate to the details that I had described either.

And for me it is unacceptable if my efforts are continued being described as an act of 'deception'. I hope that you can understand that it is frustrating to be confronted with this word.

I just don't understand why you ignore the triangular shape and ...

...

How could you be more right than those who designed the concept and that concept has been followed for nearly 100 years?

Patti, I am ignoring your 'triradial shape' completely... because it is in the grooves, and we are told to only look at the ridges!

(You are just continueing to ask the same kind of questions, while the answers are so simple and obvious!)

Regarding your final comment, I am just giving you some feedback on your thoughts & observations... and I can't help it that in your phantasies you translate that into as if I am the first who questions the early definitions given for the triradius. Even while both the vocabulary & the definitions have changed significantly since Galton's publication in the 19th century.

And I think likewise observations preceeded the choice made by the F.B.I. to exclude the concept of the 'triradius' from their approach.

Afterall, my observation regarding the confusion about the concept of the 'triradius' is e.g. illustrate by Ed Campbell's short reference about how the 'triradius' is described in the F.B.I. book ( http://www.edcampbell.com/PalmD-History.htm ):

"An apex is known in dermatoglyphics as a triradius. The FBI calls the triradius the delta, as have a number of fingerprint experts."

Because obviously, we now know that the F.B.I.'s delta is always only a 'point' at a ridge; and therefore it can formally not be described as being representative for a 'triradius', and not even for the 'triradial point' - because a 'triradial point' is not required to be found on a ridge.

So, anyone who really puts some efforts on trying to describe the issue of the 'triradius' properly... is confronted with significant complications!

I'd let Ed speak for himself. I imagine after his work these past number of years interacting with top professionals in the field of biometrics, he would have a few revisions he'd like to make of his own.

I'd also welcome Ed to the discussion if he has the time.

If you are stubbornly fixed that the triangle shape is not a valid main triradii formation as is also the Y shape, then there isn't anymore to discuss here. Very Happy

**Martijn (admin)** Sat Apr 30, 2011 7:39 pm

Patti wrote:

The triradius on the right side of example G is the same as Fig. 3.5 E

Patti, the 'drawn' lines in figure G ... only represent the type lines. And for the type lines it is irrelevant of whether there is complete triradius, an island, an empty space... or just bifurcation (with an angle smaller than 90 degrees).

Patti Sat Apr 30, 2011 7:46 pm

Martijn (admin) wrote:.

I think Patti's idea is just an 'over-simplifiction', that is not helpful at all (because it includes elements of phantasy). Again, she is only using that 'idea' to continue her phantasies about how triangles develop... but her model doesn't work because she simply ignores what is going on outside her triangles.

[/color]

This is not a true statement. I have mentioned continually that the ridges line up in rows perpendicular to tension from the distal, lateral and proximal fields. Without these tensions, we'd have palms that look like the snouts of dogs, cows, etc.

The TRIRADIUS in a fingerprint: how it develops, it's characteristics + a definition! - Page 12 Snout10

The TRIRADIUS in a fingerprint: how it develops, it's characteristics + a definition! - Page 12 Snout10

The TRIRADIUS in a fingerprint: how it develops, it's characteristics + a definition! - Page 12 Tensio11

If we could only get past talking about one type of triradii, as a Y shape, we could have moved on to the discussion about tension and pressure (from the nail bed and interphalangeal crease - and not about from each other lol!

)

**Lynn** Sat Apr 30, 2011 7:51 pm

Martijn (admin) wrote:Lynn, would it make sense to start any agreement about '2 types of triradii'... if we can't even agree about what a triradius really is?

And from the fact that the 'triangular variant' (NOTICE: I am not denying that there is such a variant!) it is NOT even mentioned in Schaumann & Alter, nor in the work of Loesch... that should be enough to know that is not useful at all to start even talking about "THE" two variants!

Secondly, that 'triangular variant' is quite rare.... which probably explains why these books did not mention that variant.

And from my point of view, this 'idea' of 2 types of triradii... origins directly from Patti's phanatasies about triangles. So, I think indirectly ... you are only fueling those 'phanatasies' by joining her in making that 'rare variant' much more important than it really is (in the books, and the frequency of it's prevalence).

So, while you and Patti agree about the 2 types... I observe that Patti is talking about 'phantasy triangles' and you obviously do not agree about that element at all.

And therefore it is actually very hard to see what your agreement REALLY implicates!

Don't you think that is worrisome for the process if this discussion if fundamental disagreements about this issue (the definiton + the phantasies) are followed by agreements about the same issue?

For me this is not a good sign at all, because there appears to be a lot of miscommunication. Illustrated by comments that such that some of the earlier/former 'agreements' were made under pressurce, etc. ...

re - I am not denying that there is such a variant!
Then I don't understand what we are arguing about!

Don't you think that is worrisome for the process if this discussion if fundamental disagreements about this issue (the definiton + the phantasies) are followed by agreements about the same issue?
sorry, can you give me an example of what you are talking about - where I have agreed and disagreed about the same thing (especially where you think I have agreed with a 'phantasy'.

For me this is not a good sign at all, because there appears to be a lot of miscommunication. Illustrated by comments that such that some of the earlier/former 'agreements' were made under pressurce, etc. ... Wink

I agree that there's a lot of miscommunication, and misunderstanding. By the way, I was partly joking about being "under pressure" (actually I don't remember agreeing with you about the Penrose examples, but maybe I did!) - and I didn't mean that the pressure came from you. I put myself under a lot of pressure to try and understand things.

**Lynn** Sat Apr 30, 2011 7:55 pm

Martijn (admin) wrote:But that certainly doesn't mean that they say that there are 'only' 2 types of triradii - as suggested by Patti and adopted by you.

I have never said 'only two types'. I've said there are two types clearly described. In fact Henry gives us a 3rd type when he talks about diverging ridges.

I think Patti's idea is just an 'over-simplifiction', that is not helpful at all (because it includes elements of phantasy). Again, she is only using that 'idea' to continue her phantasies about how triangles develop... but her model doesn't work because she simply ignores what is going on outside her triangles.

sorry - which idea are you talking about?

**Martijn (admin)** Sat Apr 30, 2011 7:59 pm

Patti wrote:
Martijn (admin) wrote:
Patti wrote:
Martijn (admin) wrote:
Patti wrote:
Martijn (admin) wrote:
So formally, Kiwihands' bifurcation has all typical charteristics of a 'triradius' - except for that two of the radiants start with a angle a bit smaller than 90 degrees, but the angle becomes wider as their path continues.... and that is really THE essential of a triradius... because this is how the 'confluence' of three ridge systems typically is created.

[/color]

This is what I call deception. Penrose clearly states less than 90 degrees disqualifies the configuration as a triradius.

Kiwi's is less than 90 degrees.

You have no authority or right to change the rules so that you can justify your idea of a bifurcation as the only form of triradius.

The obvious reason the path of the two lower branches are able to be drawn in such a way is because this bifurcation is the distal angle of the TRIANGULAR TRIRADIUS. You are merely drawing your lines down to the marginal and proximal angles of that TRIANGLE.

A bifurcation is can be the meeting of two fields. A triradius is the meeting of three fields.

For you to argue that the bifurcation is the correct location for a triradius, when that bifurcation fails to qualify, is beyond belief!

Patti, I think the problem here is that Penrose did not describe HOW exactly to measure the angle between two radiants!

Because nearly all radiants make some kind of a 'curve'... especially at the location close to the triradial point!

For example:

If in a bifurcation the two bifurcating ridges start with an angle of 90 degrees, and then continue as two parallel ridges... we can simply call it a typical example of fork.

Then, would the 90 degrees at the biginning matter?
Or should one focuss on the fact the the two ridge continue parallel... which makes the angle between the ridges close to 0 degrees?

(I think the observation regarding the angle between the ridges just after the bifurcation point is irrelevant)

And the more we continue focussing on these details, the more I am inclined to say that the F.B.I. made a brilliant choice by choosing no longer to word with the concept of the 'triradius'. Because beyond the fact that the advanced definitions are hard to understand properly... the requirement regarding the angles could even be described as 'arbitrary'!

Finally, regarding your word choice 'This is what I call deception'... I think this just illustrates that you were not able to understand the intend of my words (yet).

Because I have clearly described that I do recognize that at the beginning the angle between THE RADIANTS (!) is smaller than 90 degrees, but I have describe that the angle becomes larger as these ridge progress. And then followed my conclusion.

So the angle of the radiants varies... that is only a fact!
And Penrose certainly didn't describe what to do in such situations!

Therefore I think that word-choice does not add anything to this discussion. And the words that followed did not really relate to the details that I had described either.

And for me it is unacceptable if my efforts are continued being described as an act of 'deception'. I hope that you can understand that it is frustrating to be confronted with this word.

I just don't understand why you ignore the triangular shape and ...

...

How could you be more right than those who designed the concept and that concept has been followed for nearly 100 years?

Patti, I am ignoring your 'triradial shape' completely... because it is in the grooves, and we are told to only look at the ridges!

(You are just continueing to ask the same kind of questions, while the answers are so simple and obvious!)

Regarding your final comment, I am just giving you some feedback on your thoughts & observations... and I can't help it that in your phantasies you translate that into as if I am the first who questions the early definitions given for the triradius. Even while both the vocabulary & the definitions have changed significantly since Galton's publication in the 19th century.

And I think likewise observations preceeded the choice made by the F.B.I. to exclude the concept of the 'triradius' from their approach.

Afterall, my observation regarding the confusion about the concept of the 'triradius' is e.g. illustrate by Ed Campbell's short reference about how the 'triradius' is described in the F.B.I. book ( http://www.edcampbell.com/PalmD-History.htm ):

"An apex is known in dermatoglyphics as a triradius. The FBI calls the triradius the delta, as have a number of fingerprint experts."

Because obviously, we now know that the F.B.I.'s delta is always only a 'point' at a ridge; and therefore it can formally not be described as being representative for a 'triradius', and not even for the 'triradial point' - because a 'triradial point' is not required to be found on a ridge.

So, anyone who really puts some efforts on trying to describe the issue of the 'triradius' properly... is confronted with significant complications!

I'd let Ed speak for himself. I imagine after his work these past number of years interacting with top professionals in the field of biometrics, he would have a few revisions he'd like to make of his own.

I'd also welcome Ed to the discussion if he has the time.

If you are stubbornly fixed that the triangle shape is not a valid main triradii formation as is also the Y shape, then there isn't anymore to discuss here.

Dear Patti,

Your comment suggest that I am trying to say that Ed is wrong, but that is not my point at all: because Ed's comment is informative and realistic.

However, if we take a look at his comment from the perspective of how the 2 elements (mentioned in his comment) are defined in the books, then we can immediately recognize that his comment includes a confusing element - because the 'triradius' and the F.B.I.'s delta are defined differently and can not be recognized as 'synonyms'... but of course: they are related-elements!

But I can't blame Ed for adopting that simplification at all - because many books & websites have made likewise formal mistakes. And I would not be surprized if Ed has never had the time to study the F.B.I. book properly.

By the way, thanks for calling me 'stuborn' - but I could use the same word to qualify how you hold on to 'your phantasies', even while Lynn and I have described that as a unrealistic (and a problematic element for the process in this discussion).

Again, the 'triangular variant' in the ridges is not explicitely menitoned in about half of the books that we discussed so far - so your word choice is a reflection of how you focuss yourself on an element that appears to have become the main issue in 'your phantasies' about triangles.

Patti Sat Apr 30, 2011 7:59 pm

Lynn wrote:
Martijn (admin) wrote:But that certainly doesn't mean that they say that there are 'only' 2 types of triradii - as suggested by Patti and adopted by you.
I have never said 'only two types'. I've said there are two types clearly described. In fact Henry gives us a 3rd type when he talks about diverging ridges.

I think the 'diverging ridges' is simply the open cornered triangle shape.

Patti Sat Apr 30, 2011 8:03 pm

Martijn (admin) wrote:

By the way, thanks for calling me 'stuborn' - but I could use the same word to qualify how you hold on to 'your phantasies', even while Lynn and I have described that as a unrealistic (and a problematic element for the process in this discussion).

Again, the 'triangular variant' in the ridges is not explicitely menitoned in about half of the books that we discussed so far - so your word choice is a reflection of how you focuss yourself on an element that appears to have become the main issue in 'your phantasies' about triangles.

Yes, I agree that I have stuck stubbornly to my interpretation of the data presented. I have yet to see any reason or valid explanation as to why I should not.

Sponsored content