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

Lynn wrote:Because Galton's little black triangles relate to the 'triradial area', which is illustrated by the fact that in many of those pictures he does not trace any ridges from those triangles at all. Galton describes that his 'deltas' always are present in loops and whorls (which perfectly makes sense if you recognize that his delta only relates to the triradial area!).
And so does my black 'triangle' (and Patti's yellow one) relate to the triradial area.
Yes of course his deltas are always present in loops and whorls, so are the three ridges that border my black triradial area.

Lynn wrote:because your old definition origins directly from Galton's delta-concept! (I have described that earlier, I think you never thought about that while reading Galton's works).
I don't remember that you described earlier that it came from Galton.

Lynn wrote:

Martijn (admin) wrote:
... and Galton's famous quote is found on page 63 in 'Fingerprint Directories':

"An Arch contains no delta, a Loop has one, and a Whorls has two."




So, Galton's word 'delta' can definitely not directly relate to the little rare 'triangular plots' as described and mentioned by Cummins & Midlo. Because that specific triradius-shape variant that Cummins & Midlo describes... does exist... but it is usually not seen at all (it is quite rare: I think it is seen in about 5% all fingerprints).

I don't know why you keep repeating this, I have never said that Galton's word 'delta' directly relates to C&M 'delta or triangular plot'. The only way I used 'triangular plot' was to question the definition of 'triangular plot' as I think Galton's 'rudely formed triangle' could also be described as a triangular plot. But not the same as C&M triangular plot.

Martijn (admin) wrote:No, your black triangle is basically the same as Patti's yellow triangle... and both are just a little part of how Schaumann & Alter have described their 'area of a triradius' (see the title for figure 3.5).

And the major difference between Patti's & your suggestion is that in Schaumann & Alter's illustration we can see actually a few ridges in all three topographic zones. And those elements are missing in your litte zone proposal!

I hope this makes sense?


But actually, I have just summarized 2 more arguments why I can not accept Patti's suggestion for a definition of the 'triradial area', see:
https://www.modernhandreadingforum.com/t591p900-life-purpose-reading-please-from-fingerprints#8090

Martijn (admin) wrote:Lynn, I am not aware that I had mentioned that earlier (because we hardly have discussed Galton before yesterday).

But I mentioned that because you e.g. made the following statement about your experience during reading a few fragments from Galton's work:

"It is interesting to read his explanation of the delta or triangular plot."

You were are talking about both elements as if they are the same!


Do you now recognize why I have described the difference explicitely in those two posts?

Lynn wrote:

Martijn (admin) wrote:No, your black triangle is basically the same as Patti's yellow triangle... and both are just a little part of how Schaumann & Alter have described their 'area of a triradius' (see the title for figure 3.5).

And the major difference between Patti's & your suggestion is that in Schaumann & Alter's illustration we can see actually a few ridges in all three topographic zones. And those elements are missing in your litte zone proposal!

I hope this makes sense?


But actually, I have just summarized 2 more arguments why I can not accept Patti's suggestion for a definition of the 'triradial area', see:
https://www.modernhandreadingforum.com/t591p900-life-purpose-reading-please-from-fingerprints#8090

Yes my black triangle is the same as Patti's yellow one.
Schaumann & Alter don't describe the area of the triradius in the title to the picture, & I don't have the text.

How do the other ridges alter the principle of what Patti & I are talking about in our coloured-in examples?

Yes they do mention the words 'area of the the triradius' in the title of figure 3.5 (I have just presented a copy in the other discussion).

And regarding your question:

Because the definition of the triradius in the book refers to parallel ridge lines (Loesch), ridge fields (Penrose), or ridge systems (Schaumann & Alter + Cummins & Midlo).

Again, the word 'parallel' (though only mentioned by Loesch and Penrose) explicitely states that it refers to parallel ridges in each of the topographic zones. And that element is missing in Patti's yellow area (and your black zone).


Therefore it would be a confusing mistake to define Patti's small area as the 'triradial area', because both of you are basically only talking about the central groove(s).

(And we don't need a definition for any groove(s) at all!.... )


PS. You said that Patti's picture speaks for itself, but that is not true at all ... because in here picture the groove is empty... but there can manifest endless variations or ridges in that area... and depending on the position of the ridges, then you might get confronted with an area that suddenly includes 2 or three 3 grooves.

Sorry, but it is just a unthoughtful idea... especially in the perspective of how Schaumann & Alter have already sort of defined the 'area of the triradius'.

Lynn wrote:

Martijn (admin) wrote:Lynn, I am not aware that I had mentioned that earlier (because we hardly have discussed Galton before yesterday).

But I mentioned that because you e.g. made the following statement about your experience during reading a few fragments from Galton's work:

"It is interesting to read his explanation of the delta or triangular plot."

You were are talking about both elements as if they are the same!


Do you now recognize why I have described the difference explicitely in those two posts?

I meant that you keep repeating it tonight. But now I see why - because you wrongly assumed that when I said the delta or triangular plot. you thought I was talking about C&M triangular plot. But actually from the content of what I wrote afterwards it should be obvious that I am not talking about C&M triangular plot!

(However Galton's 'rudely formed triangle' could also be described as a 'triangular plot' - but no I did not think it is the same as C&M triangular plot!!)

... Lynn, I understand what you are saying here:

But instead of blaming me for making the wrong assumptions... it would actually have been more 'reasonable' if you had apologized for using Cummins & Midlo's words in the perspective of Galton's work.


Because this is clearly an example of how you 'mixed' the vocabularies of both works... and not only in the sentence where you wrote:

"It is interesting to read his explanation of the delta or triangular plot."

You also said:

"Galton's description is not like C&M illustrations of 'neat perfect little triangles' he describes it as " a small and rudely shaped triangle". Hence I guess the term 'triangular plot' as opposed to 'triangle'. Hence I guess the term 'triangular plot' as opposed to 'triangle'."

Lynn, how can I read these words otherwise than that you are suggesting that Cummins & Midlo's triangular plot relates to Galton's triangle!?

Because Galton is only using the word 'triangle'...!
(So it is quite hard to understand what you are trying to describe here)


So, I only took your words literally... but if that leads to a misinterpretation of your words, that should illustrate for you that your use of words was actually confusing in itself!


In you later response you write:

"However Galton's 'rudely formed triangle' could also be described as a 'triangular plot' - but no I did not think it is the same as C&M triangular plot!!"

Sure, yes I can understand your reasoning. But don't you recognize how confusing your word-choice then itself really becomes!????

You better avoid 'mixing the vocabularies', because otherwise your words become UNREADABLE and lead to MISCONCEPTIONS about what you are really trying to say. For, when you mix the vocabularies from different perspectives... then that results in situation like we have noticed in the article of Garuto & Plato: because anyone who reads their words would conclude that Galton was the inventor of the word 'triradius'!

Do you recognize how you made a likewise mistake?

(Such mistakes lead to endless discussions about 'words' only! So, I consider 'mixing the vocabularies'.... 'swearing in the church', because mixing the vocabularies can only lead to misunderstandings & frustrations about that we even don't lunderstand each other when we take the word literally)


And because you were not aware of that mixing of the vocabulary (because you only made that very explicite after I gave you my feedback) ... I started only trying to explain why you words(choice) was likely not correct... and then I get 'rewarded' with blaming-words like:

"I don't know why you keep repeating this, I have never said that Galton's word 'delta' directly relates to C&M 'delta or triangular plot'."

True!

You indeed did not state that explicitely. But your word choice was simply rather confusing itself... because you started yourself using words that in the books are only used by Cummins & Midlo.

And I invested quite some time in describing that something was not right in what you described.

Fortunately, it was only your choice-of-words that was confusing, and not the idea itself.
But I think I spend about 2 hours responding to your 'choice of words' + the related issues.

Lynn wrote:Schaumann & Alter don't describe the area of the triradius in the title to the picture, & I don't have the text.

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Lynn wrote:

Martijn (admin) wrote:Lynn, I am not aware that I had mentioned that earlier (because we hardly have discussed Galton before yesterday).

But I mentioned that because you e.g. made the following statement about your experience during reading a few fragments from Galton's work:

"It is interesting to read his explanation of the delta or triangular plot."

You were are talking about both elements as if they are the same!


Do you now recognize why I have described the difference explicitely in those two posts?

I meant that you keep repeating it tonight. But now I see why - because you wrongly assumed that when I said the delta or triangular plot. you thought I was talking about C&M triangular plot. But actually from the content of what I wrote afterwards it should be obvious that I am not talking about C&M triangular plot!

(However Galton's 'rudely formed triangle' could also be described as a 'triangular plot' - but no I did not think it is the same as C&M triangular plot!!)

... Lynn, I understand what you are saying here:

But instead of blaming me for making the wrong assumptions... it would actually have been more 'reasonable' if you had apologized for using Cummins & Midlo's words in the perspective of Galton's work.


Because this is clearly an example of how you 'mixed' the vocabularies of both works... and not only in the sentence where you wrote:

"It is interesting to read his explanation of the delta or triangular plot."

You also said:

"Galton's description is not like C&M illustrations of 'neat perfect little triangles' he describes it as " a small and rudely shaped triangle". Hence I guess the term 'triangular plot' as opposed to 'triangle'. Hence I guess the term 'triangular plot' as opposed to 'triangle'."

Lynn, how can I read these words otherwise than that you are suggesting that Cummins & Midlo's triangular plot relates to Galton's triangle!?

Because Galton is only using the word 'triangle'...!
(So it is quite hard to understand what you are trying to describe here)


So, I only took your words literally... but if that leads to a misinterpretation of your words, that should illustrate for you that your use of words was actually confusing in itself!


In you later response you write:

"However Galton's 'rudely formed triangle' could also be described as a 'triangular plot' - but no I did not think it is the same as C&M triangular plot!!"

Sure, yes I can understand your reasoning. But don't you recognize how confusing your word-choice then itself really becomes!????

You better avoid 'mixing the vocabularies', because otherwise your words become UNREADABLE and lead to MISCONCEPTIONS about what you are really trying to say. For, when you mix the vocabularies from different perspectives... then that results in situation like we have noticed in the article of Garuto & Plato: because anyone who reads their words would conclude that Galton was the inventor of the word 'triradius'!

Do you recognize how you made a likewise mistake?

(Such mistakes lead to endless discussions about 'words' only! So, I consider 'mixing the vocabularies'.... 'swearing in the church', because mixing the vocabularies can only lead to misunderstandings & frustrations about that we even don't lunderstand each other when we take the word literally)


And because you were not aware of that mixing of the vocabulary (because you only made that very explicite after I gave you my feedback) ... I started only trying to explain why you words(choice) was likely not correct... and then I get 'rewarded' with blaming-words like:

"I don't know why you keep repeating this, I have never said that Galton's word 'delta' directly relates to C&M 'delta or triangular plot'."

True!

You indeed did not state that explicitely. But your word choice was simply rather confusing itself... because you started yourself using words that in the books are only used by Cummins & Midlo.

And I invested quite some time in describing that something was not right in what you described.

Fortunately, it was only your choice-of-words that was confusing, and not the idea itself.
But I think I spend about 2 hours responding to your 'choice of words' + the related issues.

Martijn (admin) wrote:

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.

(1) 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.

(2) sorry - which idea are you talking about?

Ad 1) Bingo!!

In a way, we could say that Henry has described two types for how deltas manifest ... and the variant with the 'triradial plot' is not included among Henry's list of two variants.

'Capice?'


Ad 2) Patti's idea that there are 2 main types of triradii. That is what I call an 'over-simplification', because [a] in reality there are so many 'variations' in how they manifest (regarding: angles, length of radiants, issues of (a)symmetry). But those 'variations' were never mentioned in the definitions. And again, [b] in about half of the books that we discussed properly the variant of the 'triangular shape' was not even mentioned.

Therefore I think it is simply a big mistake to adopt her idea that there are 2 main types of triradii... because it is [c] not helpful at all, it is only an oversimplification (that does not acknowledge the fact that the 'triangular variant' is seen in only a small minority of all 'triradii'.

And meanwhile I also see how her idea [d] directly relates to her phantasies about triangles - which you and I rejected.

I hope these are enough arguments [a,b,c, d] to recognize that I only think it is a completely useless idea... that will not get us any further in this discussion - especially since we know since yesterday that Patti's idea also creates a conflict with Henry's list of the 2 major manifestion shapes (that makes the 5th argument).

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Lynn wrote:

Martijn (admin) wrote:No, your black triangle is basically the same as Patti's yellow triangle... and both are just a little part of how Schaumann & Alter have described their 'area of a triradius' (see the title for figure 3.5).

And the major difference between Patti's & your suggestion is that in Schaumann & Alter's illustration we can see actually a few ridges in all three topographic zones. And those elements are missing in your litte zone proposal!

I hope this makes sense?


But actually, I have just summarized 2 more arguments why I can not accept Patti's suggestion for a definition of the 'triradial area', see:
https://www.modernhandreadingforum.com/t591p900-life-purpose-reading-please-from-fingerprints#8090

Yes my black triangle is the same as Patti's yellow one.
Schaumann & Alter don't describe the area of the triradius in the title to the picture, & I don't have the text.

How do the other ridges alter the principle of what Patti & I are talking about in our coloured-in examples?

Yes they do mention the words 'area of the the triradius' in the title of figure 3.5 (I have just presented a copy in the other discussion).

And regarding your question:

Because the definition of the triradius in the book refers to parallel ridge lines (Loesch), ridge fields (Penrose), or ridge systems (Schaumann & Alter + Cummins & Midlo).

Again, the word 'parallel' (though only mentioned by Loesch and Penrose) explicitely states that it refers to parallel ridges in each of the topographic zones. And that element is missing in Patti's yellow area (and your black zone).


Therefore it would be a confusing mistake to define Patti's small area as the 'triradial area', because both of you are basically only talking about the central groove(s).

(And we don't need a definition for any groove(s) at all!.... )


PS. You said that Patti's picture speaks for itself, but that is not true at all ... because in here picture the groove is empty... but there can manifest endless variations or ridges in that area... and depending on the position of the ridges, then you might get confronted with an area that suddenly includes 2 or three 3 grooves.

Sorry, but it is just a unthoughtful idea... especially in the perspective of how Schaumann & Alter have already sort of defined the 'area of the triradius'.

Martijn (admin) wrote: ... Lynn, I understand what you are saying here:
But instead of blaming me for making the wrong assumptions... it would actually have been more 'reasonable' if you had apologized for using Cummins & Midlo's words in the perspective of Galton's work.

Because this is clearly an example of how you 'mixed' the vocabularies of both works... and not only in the sentence where you wrote:

"It is interesting to read his explanation of the delta or triangular plot."

You also said:

"Galton's description is not like C&M illustrations of 'neat perfect little triangles' he describes it as " a small and rudely shaped triangle". Hence I guess the term 'triangular plot' as opposed to 'triangle'. Hence I guess the term 'triangular plot' as opposed to 'triangle'."

Lynn, how can I read these words otherwise than that you are suggesting that Cummins & Midlo's triangular plot relates to Galton's triangle!?

Because Galton is only using the word 'triangle'...!
(So it is quite hard to understand what you are trying to describe here)


So, I only took your words literally... but if that leads to a misinterpretation of your words, that should illustrate for you that your use of words was actually confusing in itself!


In you later response you write:

"However Galton's 'rudely formed triangle' could also be described as a 'triangular plot' - but no I did not think it is the same as C&M triangular plot!!"

Sure, yes I can understand your reasoning. But don't you recognize how confusing your word-choice then itself really becomes!????

You better avoid 'mixing the vocabularies', because otherwise your words become UNREADABLE and lead to MISCONCEPTIONS about what you are really trying to say. For, when you mix the vocabularies from different perspectives... then that results in situation like we have noticed in the article of Garuto & Plato: because anyone who reads their words would conclude that Galton was the inventor of the word 'triradius'!

Do you recognize how you made a likewise mistake?

(Such mistakes lead to endless discussions about 'words' only! So, I consider 'mixing the vocabularies'.... 'swearing in the church', because mixing the vocabularies can only lead to misunderstandings & frustrations about that we even don't lunderstand each other when we take the word literally)


And because you were not aware of that mixing of the vocabulary (because you only made that very explicite after I gave you my feedback) ... I started only trying to explain why you words(choice) was likely not correct... and then I get 'rewarded' with blaming-words like:

"I don't know why you keep repeating this, I have never said that Galton's word 'delta' directly relates to C&M 'delta or triangular plot'."

True!

You indeed did not state that explicitely. But your word choice was simply rather confusing itself... because you started yourself using words that in the books are only used by Cummins & Midlo.

And I invested quite some time in describing that something was not right in what you described.

Fortunately, it was only your choice-of-words that was confusing, and not the idea itself.
But I think I spend about 2 hours responding to your 'choice of words' + the related issues.

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Lynn wrote:Schaumann & Alter don't describe the area of the triradius in the title to the picture, & I don't have the text.

Lynn, where you tired last night?


Because, first you made the above statement about Schaumann & Alter's book... and then you reminded me in a later comment that you don't have their book yourself. So, what did you exactly have in mind then?


Because the facts are that they do mention 'the area of the triradius' in the title of figure 3.5 only.

So, can you please explain how I should understand your sentence above?


Because this is quite frustrating as well... confronting me with this 'incorrect correction', because you made that comment in response to where I worte:

"No, your black triangle is basically the same as Patti's yellow triangle... and both are just a little part of how Schaumann & Alter have described their 'area of a triradius' (see the title for figure 3.5)."


Do you recongize now as well... that you were telling me things... that you now youself as well can only describe as 'not correct' (I presented a copy of the pages where the title of figure 3.5 does confirm what I described).

Maybe you made writing mistake? Or maybe another unfortunately word choice?

Patti wrote:Thanks for the Galton.org link!!

Here is the illustration showing the 2 different types of triradii. (I took a digital camera image from my monitor)

Note: "Two Cases"

Patti wrote:following page:


We don't need to worry about a difference in the systems resulting in a plus or minus 1 ridge count. Galton allows us to be 2 ridges off in counts.

Patti wrote:

Martijn (admin) wrote:

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.

(1) 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.

(2) sorry - which idea are you talking about?

Ad 1) Bingo!!

In a way, we could say that Henry has described two types for how deltas manifest ... and the variant with the 'triradial plot' is not included among Henry's list of two variants.

'Capice?'


Ad 2) Patti's idea that there are 2 main types of triradii. That is what I call an 'over-simplification', because [a] in reality there are so many 'variations' in how they manifest (regarding: angles, length of radiants, issues of (a)symmetry). But those 'variations' were never mentioned in the definitions. And again, [b] in about half of the books that we discussed properly the variant of the 'triangular shape' was not even mentioned.

Therefore I think it is simply a big mistake to adopt her idea that there are 2 main types of triradii... because it is [c] not helpful at all, it is only an oversimplification (that does not acknowledge the fact that the 'triangular variant' is seen in only a small minority of all 'triradii'.

And meanwhile I also see how her idea [d] directly relates to her phantasies about triangles - which you and I rejected.

I hope these are enough arguments [a,b,c, d] to recognize that I only think it is a completely useless idea... that will not get us any further in this discussion - especially since we know since yesterday that Patti's idea also creates a conflict with Henry's list of the 2 major manifestion shapes (that makes the 5th argument).

Of course there are 2 kinds or "cases" of triradii and each case has its own list of variants.

Lynn wrote:

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Lynn wrote:Schaumann & Alter don't describe the area of the triradius in the title to the picture, & I don't have the text.

Lynn, where you tired last night?


Because, first you made the above statement about Schaumann & Alter's book... and then you reminded me in a later comment that you don't have their book yourself. So, what did you exactly have in mind then?


Because the facts are that they do mention 'the area of the triradius' in the title of figure 3.5 only.

So, can you please explain how I should understand your sentence above?


Because this is quite frustrating as well... confronting me with this 'incorrect correction', because you made that comment in response to where I worte:

"No, your black triangle is basically the same as Patti's yellow triangle... and both are just a little part of how Schaumann & Alter have described their 'area of a triradius' (see the title for figure 3.5)."


Do you recongize now as well... that you were telling me things... that you now youself as well can only describe as 'not correct' (I presented a copy of the pages where the title of figure 3.5 does confirm what I described).

Maybe you made writing mistake? Or maybe another unfortunately word choice?

Yes I was a little tired last night (it was late!) but I'm not sure how I made a writing mistake or an unfortunate choice of words? Sorry I don't recognize that I was telling you things..."that you now youself as well can only describe as 'not correct'" ???

As I said, I have the picture but not the text from the pages, so when you said "they describe" the area of the triradius, I thought something must be written about it that I hadn't read. Thanks for later posting the text but I did not see any 'description', only the 'mention' of the words ' area of the triradius' under the diagram (which I had already seen).

Lynn, thanks for confirming that you were tired.

- And yes, I can now see how where I used the word 'described' (regarding the 'area of the triradius')... you assumed that I was talking about an explicite definition.

But that is not what I literally described, I only explicitely talked about that those words were mentioned in the TITLE of Schaumann & Alter's picture 3.5, and that in a way the picture itself does describe what their words 'area of the triradius' mean!


So when I refered to those words I basically only DESCRIBED that those words were used there in the perspective of that picture! And therefore, in a way ... they have visually described the words 'area of the triradius' with the illustration of those 6 pictures!

Therefore it became quite confusing for me that you denied that.
While I was not talking about any formal definition at all!


And by the way, the word 'describe' is just a common word that can be used for many purposes. So I can not help it that you assumed that I was talking about a formal explicite definition.


TRIANGULAR PLOT:

Sorry Lynn, but if you still don't recognize that your use of the words 'triangular plot' (twice!) in the perspective of Galton's work became rather confusing (because in that post you first mentioned it in the perspective of Galton's work, and then also in the perspective Cummins & Midlo's work) ... then let us take a closer look at the facts that are in your words:


First of all, it was rather confusing to describe Galton's filled black-triangles as a 'triangular plot'... because a 'triradial plot' typically has 3 arms or 'three variables', while Galton's filled black triangles do not have 3 arms like seen in a 'triangular plot'.

Oh ... but I think I can even explain why you use this confusing use of words - because earlier in youf comment about Garuto and Plato you wrote:

"Galton introduced the word triradius. They also say he was the first to recognise the importance of triradii, "which he defined as triangular plots formed by the divergence of adjacent ridges."

(But obviously, Garuto & Plate were not in the middle of discussion where the different use of the vocabularies became a major handicap for us to understand what the authors write)


And secondly, you were referring in your second statement clearly referingto a 'term'...:

" Galton's description is not like C&M illustrations of 'neat perfect little triangles' he describes it as " a small and rudely shaped triangle". Hence I guess the term 'triangular plot' as opposed to 'triangle'."

... and you also explicitely mentioned Cummins & Midlo, how could I not associate your first use of the words 'triradial plot' with Cummins & Midlo?

(Everything point in that direction... except that you now state that you had something else in mind)


And after I first tried to point that out ... you wrote in your response:

"I meant that you keep repeating it tonight. But now I see why - because you wrongly assumed that when I said the delta or triangular plot. you thought I was talking about C&M triangular plot. "

Come on Lynn... ( ) ... how can I now understand these words + your ???


You are appear to be blaming me for misinterpretating your words, while your word choice itself became rather confusing for the three reasons that I described (1 - Galton did not use the word 'triradial plot' at all, 2 - a typical 'triangular plot' has three arms, which are not seen in Galton's work, 3 - In the same post you also explicitely used the word 'triangular plot' in the perspective of how Cummins & Midlo used it).

Garuto show no awareness about the difference between Cummins & Midlo's 'triangular plot' and Galton's delta... but the difference is that they don't mention Cummins & Midlo's work in their 'formally incorrect descriptions of Galton's work'.

But you are in the middle of a discussion where the different vocabularies are a HUGE handicap to understand the writings of the authors properly!


Okay, I now understand that your first use of the word 'triangular plot' only related to Galton's little black triangles ... but the green quote from your words above describes that you were talking about Cummins & Midlo as well!

So, how can you not call that a 'confusing use of words' ''!???



Lynn, do you recognize now how confusing the word choice of these 'scientific researchers' really is? Because Garuto & Plato talk about Galton's delta as if he described the delta as a 'triangular plot', but that is not true at all - Galton is literally using the word triangles only.

And Cummins & Midlo used the same words - 'triangular plot' - in the perspective of Galton. However Cummins & Midlo correctly suggest that these 'triangular plots' are actually quite rare ("... A triradius may be present when there is no delta in the strict sense."), but with his rule Galton described that a delta is always seen in any loop (one delta) and whorl (two delta).

See how confusing Cummins & Midlo's vocabulary even becomes when we put it in perspective to what Galton described himself!!!

( )


And sorry Lynn, I think you demonstate not much awareness of how you used the words 'triradial plot' twice in a completely different context... !

How can you deny that as a confusing choice-of-words????


(Lynn, you are talking so 'deffensive' ... you are even denying the facts in your own words... which makes me sad... because I have never seen you doing this before ... am I pushing you too much?)

Lynn wrote:
I'm sorry my words confused you Martijn. The words 'triangular plot' are not confined to Cummins & Midlo (yes OK, they are in fingerprint books, but not in general usage in language). Triangular plot just means a roughly triangular shape, for example if you were buying a triangular plot of land.


then I get 'rewarded' with blaming-words like:
"I don't know why you keep repeating this,


Sorry. Partly I felt frustrated because I didn't understand why you kept talking about Cummins & Midlo, when in my mind (but I know you are not a mind-reader!) I was talking about a 'roughly triangular shape'.
In PM you had already explained in detail how you define Cummins & Midlo's use of the term 'triangular plot', I understood and accepted that C&M were talking about 'the little triangle shape where three ridges meet at the angles'. (so in my frustration I did not understand why you repeated it, because you had already made it clear to me). But that is not a 'universal definition' of the words' triangular plot'.

he (Galton)describes it as " a small and rudely shaped triangle". Hence I guess the term 'triangular plot' as opposed to 'triangle'. Hence I guess the term 'triangular plot' as opposed to 'triangle'."[/i]

Lynn, how can I read these words otherwise than that you are suggesting that Cummins & Midlo's triangular plot relates to Galton's triangle!?

Because Galton is only using the word 'triangle'...!
(So it is quite hard to understand what you are trying to describe here)

Galton said "rudley shaped triangle", a triangular plot is something that is roughly triangular shaped (as opposed to a perfect triangle) (for example - 'a triangular plot of land'). That's all I meant.

I didn't realise that using a common phrase was 'mixing vocabularies', but also I understand that maybe you only came across that terminology of 'triangular plot' in C&M work. I apologise if I have sworn in church! :-)

Lynn, thank you very much for your appology relating to the issue of 'mixing the vocabularies'... !


Regarding your question about why I focussed on your comments related to Galton's 'triangles'... that is basically the result because you have adopted Patti's idea to define the 'triradial area' as a the YELLOW groove-zone in her picture.

All researchers only talk about the ridges, except for Penrose & Schaumann & Alter ... who explicitely described that a 'triradial point' can be found in a groove.


But in the perspective of that they always talk about ridges, I think it is simply an 'untoughtful' mistake to start defining certain words solely with a visual example of a central groove!

Especially since such a defintion has only a speculative character , because I don't see at all how Patti's definition brings us any further in our discussions. And instead all I observe is ... that he definition is an expression of the fact that she sometimes focusses on the grooves only!


Lynn, remember... earlier you told Patti yourself:
- that she should not add phantasies to her considerations;
- and that all books tell us to fouss on the ridges.

And therefore, in the perspective of those advices.... I recognize how you create a new 'contraditon' in your perceptions.


And after describing this 'contradiction'... I would like to remember you as well about
that earlier when Patti drew her litte yellow triangle in Kiwihands fingeprint... you told her that there is no such 'triangle' at all!


Lynn, this example should make you aware.. that Patti's definition (based on the triangle in the central part of the 'area of the triradius'), DIRECTLY relates to her phantasy about the little yellow triangle in Kiwihands fingerprint!

(So your assumption that your likewise black-triangle could represent Galton's concept of the delta... is likewise speculation/phantasy because Galton's delta can actually be associated with the full 'area of the triradius' as seen in the illustrations of Cummins & Midlo's figure 47; Penrose's figure 4 E, F &G; Schauman & Alter's figure 3.5; and Loesch's figure 2.2.)


...'Capice'?

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Patti wrote:Thanks for the Galton.org link!!

Here is the illustration showing the 2 different types of triradii. (I took a digital camera image from my monitor)

Note: "Two Cases"

Yes Patti, and guess what?

1) Just like in the Henry quote (presented by Wilder) .... in both of Galton's variants (C + D) there is no 'triangular' shape!
2) And in Galton's d-variant there is no 'bifurcation' - this is what I call an empty 'iradial area' variantPoint 1 explains why I rejected your idea to describe the 'triangular triradius' as a main variant.

And point 2 explains why I rejected you assment for Kiwihands' fingerprint: because in her fingerprint there is a bifurcation - big difference!


PS. The trouble with Galton's work is:

Galton's delta only relates to the 'triradial area' (as described in the pictures of Schaumann & Alter). So, Galton's two 'outer terminus' examples are not 2 main variants for the triradius, only for his delta concept. And later Penrose came with 3 likewise variants, and Schaumann & Alter with 6 variants.

And finally the F.B.I. probably thought: 'this triradius-talk is rather confusing because all scientific authors have presented theoretical pictures, but they did not describe enough guidelines to discriminate a true triradius from irregular fields... which can have a likewise "confluence" of ridge systems'.

Patti wrote:

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Patti wrote:Thanks for the Galton.org link!!

Here is the illustration showing the 2 different types of triradii. (I took a digital camera image from my monitor)

Note: "Two Cases"

Yes Patti, and guess what?

1) Just like in the Henry quote (presented by Wilder) .... in both of Galton's variants (C + D) there is no 'triangular' shape!
2) And in Galton's d-variant there is no 'bifurcation' - this is what I call an empty 'iradial area' variant

Point 1 explains why I rejected your idea to describe the 'triangular triradius' as a main variant.

And point 2 explains why I rejected you assment for Kiwihands' fingerprint: because in her fingerprint there is a bifurcation - big difference!


PS. The trouble with Galton's work is:

Galton's delta only relates to the 'triradial area' (as described in the pictures of Schaumann & Alter). So, Galton's two 'outer terminus' examples are not 2 main variants for the triradius, only for his delta concept. And later Penrose came with 3 likewise variants, and Schaumann & Alter with 6 variants.

And finally the F.B.I. probably thought: 'this triradius-talk is rather confusing because all scientific authors have presented theoretical pictures, but they did not describe enough guidelines to discriminate a true triradius from irregular fields... which can have a likewise "confluence" of ridge systems'.

Glad I have a good sense of humor!

We are probably more interested in what the majority of experts call this area than what you call an empty "iradial area"

Even correcting your typo, there is no such description as an "empty" area. It's always described as a sort of triangular shape.

Galton illustrated 2 types and that has not changed. Loesch's work was specialized and did not work using grooves.

Penrose showed 2 types and 1 variant of the two types.

Schaumann & Alter expanded with more variants, but the 2 main types were included as A and E.

...

Hi Patti,

What I descebided as an 'empty' variant ... relates to what the researchers have described as the 'island' variant, see:Cummins & Mildo, figure 47E + Schaumann & Alter, figure 3.5B.

The single difference between my 'empty' variant and the researcher's island variant is that only in the 'island' variant there is a dot visible - while in the 'empty' variant the dot is missing!

See: Cummins & Midlo figure 47F (they did not spend any word on that 'empty' variant example at all, so the didn't use a name for that variant either), and Schaumann & Alter figure 3.5E (which they did not name either, they only described for that variant that is just one of the variants where the 'triradial point' is found in a groove - just like in figure 3.5F)


So your conclusion that my 'empty' variant has not been described... that just illustrates again how you probably misread my words again by making assocations that do not relate to how I described the 'empty' variant.

And I don't recognize how 'humour' becomes involved in this ... but was only a direct result of your phantasies about my use of the the 'empty'...?



PS regarding the other points:

- Loesch's book is not different from the other books regarding that aspect, because the other books do not use the grooves either (except sometimes for locating the 'triradial point');

- I don't see how Penrose's three examples relate to Galton's 2nd example, because in none of Penrose's example we see a likewise short ridge as seenin Galton's second example.

And you comment about 'type lines'... illustrates again how you are still mixing the vocabularies as well: because in Galton's second example the 'triradial point' is located at the short ridge! And therefore, if you describe the other two ridges that are seen in his example as 'type lines'... then you are actually using the F.B.I.'s concept for the type lines!

Patti wrote:You are mixing vocabularies now! An "island" in dermatoglphics is associated with a type of ridge formation alone. Not a triradius. It would be helpful to support yourself with actual quotes and references rather than vague inferences.