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

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Lynn wrote:
I think that perhaps you still haven't quite understood exactly what Patti & I are trying to convey. Actually the ridges are the important thing in our 'groovy' idea. But if you understand it, and dismiss it, then that's fine by me, I will not try to convince you!

Lynn, if you think that the ridges are THE important thing... then why highlightening the groove only? + When I asked 'where is the description?', you responded that the picture should speak for itself, etc.

(... )

However, I think I do understand what you are saying in your words above - and I think it perfectly makes sense that in your perception the ridges 'are the important thing' in this idea ( ).


By the way, in your earlier message (embraced by Patti) - you did not mentioned that in your perception the ridges 'are the important thing':

Patti wrote:

Lynn wrote:I am thinking of 'triradial area' as the area enlosed by or surrounded by the ridges. Yes, in the example that Patti & I drew, we have coloured in the grooves. The grooves are still part of the 3 converging ridge systems, and in this case there is a confluence of 3 grooves around the central triradial point, and they are bordered by the 3 ridges that form the triradius.

Yes, we are in complete agreement here.

So, are you both really in 'complete agreement' like Patti suggested?
(From my point of view, your new comment raises doubts about that)


Oh, and by ... maybe I could illustrate the problematic aspect of focussing on the 'grooves' (as indicated by the colour in the pictures that you both presented) as follows:

Even the groove between the two diverging ridges in 2nd picture below follows the definition of your 'triradial area':

Lynn wrote:I am thinking of 'triradial area' as the area enlosed by or surrounded by the ridges. Yes, in the example that Patti & I drew, we have coloured in the grooves. The grooves are still part of the 3 converging ridge systems, and in this case there is a confluence of 3 grooves around the central triradial point, and they are bordered by the 3 ridges that form the triradius.

Oh, and by ... maybe I could illustrate the problematic aspect of focussing on the 'grooves' (as indicated by the colour in the pictures that you both presented) as follows:

Even the groove between the two diverging ridges in 2nd picture below follows the definition of your 'triradial area':

Lynn wrote:
Martijn, sorry, I am lost in your last 2 sentences....

Oh, and by ... maybe I could illustrate the problematic aspect of focussing on the 'grooves' (as indicated by the colour in the pictures that you both presented) as follows:

Even the groove between the two diverging ridges in 2nd picture below follows the definition of your 'triradial area':

(was there a picture attached? if so, sorry I couldn't see it).

Patti wrote:Penrose says:

"From the central point of a triradius, which may be an island, a ridge junction, a ridge end, or even a triangular enclosure,..."

Do you think he is saying? "From the central point which may be an etc. etc.

or do you think he is saying?

"From the triradius, which may be an island, ar ridge junction, a ridge end, or even a triangular enclosure,"

Because, the 'triradial point' or 'fbi delta' is a focus point on a ridge or groove.
The triradius is 3 innermost ridges doing something together.

A focus point on a ridge works with an "island, a ridge junction, a ridge end" but how does it include the entire enclosure as probably is shown in G?

The 'triangular enclosure' is more than a location on a ridge.

Lynn wrote:(Edit - I notice while I was searching, several posts have been made! I can't keep up with you guys!!)


Ok Patti I found it!



I understand what you are saying, but I don't agree that they are 'the same', because in one case the ridges join together, in another case there is a groove between them.

Martijn explained to me the difference between this example in G (which is like Cummins & Midlo 'triangular plot') and the examples where the ridges don't join to form a definite angle (or 'perfect triangle'). I accept that there is a difference between the innermost ridges from the 3 fields "joining" and "meeting".
ie a "triangular enclosure" where the ridges join at the angles being different from a 'roughly triangular shape' where the 3 ridge systems join at the grooves.
But...if the 3 fields don't join together at the ridges, then I understand how we then have to look at them 'joining or meeting at the grooves of the ridge system" and that's when our 'triradial area" becomes more important.
(tho I also agree that the area within these 3 joining ridges in fig G is also the triradial area, with the ridges being the triradius and the triradial point being in the centre).

Patti, I am sure that you & I are thinking along the same lines, even if we have sometimes have different ways of expressing it!

Lynn wrote:

Patti wrote:Penrose says:

"From the central point of a triradius, which may be an island, a ridge junction, a ridge end, or even a triangular enclosure,..."

Do you think he is saying? "From the central point which may be an etc. etc.

or do you think he is saying?

"From the triradius, which may be an island, ar ridge junction, a ridge end, or even a triangular enclosure,"

Because, the 'triradial point' or 'fbi delta' is a focus point on a ridge or groove.
The triradius is 3 innermost ridges doing something together.

A focus point on a ridge works with an "island, a ridge junction, a ridge end" but how does it include the entire enclosure as probably is shown in G?

The 'triangular enclosure' is more than a location on a ridge.

"From the central point of a triradius"
I think he is saying "from the triradial point" tho I agree it is confusing.
"fbi delta" is always on a ridge. "scientific triradial point" can be in a groove (but can also be on a ridge).

re A focus point on a ridge works with an "island, a ridge junction, a ridge end" but how does it include the entire enclosure as probably is shown in G?
in scientific system, the triradial point is in the centre of the triradius. The ridges that form entire enclosure in G is the triradius, the triradial point would be in the centre of the "triangle".

But then we have to move to the ridges to 'trace the ridges'. Sorry - you already know this, maybe I have misunderstood your question?
re - The 'triangular enclosure' is more than a location on a ridge.
The 'triangular enclosure' is the three innermost ridges (?)

btw I choose to focus on the 3 innermost ridges (as triradius) as being fairly continual ridges and not small broken parts of ridges which I consider to be in the 'triradial area'.

hope I am making sense, I know what I mean but am having a hard time conveying it!

Lynn wrote:Thanks Patti, I know you understand the formation of skin ridges better than I do.

I understand what you are saying by "The connected corners is one step inward in the flow of converging fields, or the ridges were so close they joined at the corners."

Just as I said the "perfect triradius" (or 'star shape') is when the 3 fields converge so much that they join in the centre,,,, ie another step inward from what you just described. (?)

Lynn wrote:Thanks Patti, I know you understand the formation of skin ridges better than I do.

I understand what you are saying by "The connected corners is one step inward in the flow of converging fields, or the ridges were so close they joined at the corners."

Just as I said the "perfect triradius" (or 'star shape') is when the 3 fields converge so much that they join in the centre,,,, ie another step inward from what you just described. (?)

Martijn (admin) wrote: 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!

If the dot were not present, point B on ridge C, as shown in the figure, would be considered as the delta. This would be equally true whether the ridges were connected with one of the type lines, both type lines, or disconnected altogether.

Lynn wrote:Ok I see your picture now. Yes, the 'triradial area' is the area bordered by the 3 innermost diverging ridges from the 3 fields. (is this a problem?) (?)

Yes, because as soon as one starts focussing on the grooves apply the 'groovy theory'... then one can always start a debate about an imaginary triangle - irrelevant of whether there is a bifurcation or not!



While if there is no bifurcation, the ridge only are decisive for where to locate the 'triradial point'... and the shape of the groove is COMPLETELY irrelevant.

Therefore I have described this 'groovy theory' as an irrelevant phantasy consideration - that adds nothing, an will only initiate debates about grooves solely.... where ridges (bifurcations) are being ignored just like we have seen in the debate about Kiwihands fingerprint.


Lynn, if you still think that this 'groovy theory' has any value... I invite you to apply it on Kiwihands fingerprint in order to see if it becomes helpful for you anyhow (in the topic where we discuss her fingerprint).

Patti wrote:Martijn!


Just as you predicted!


I have another triangle sample to present....


A solid triangular plot!



("A Child is Born" page 126)

I would, however, place the triradial point at the place where the ridge to the right of this triangular plot, abuts a ridge at the lower left.

It is interesting to trace the ridges. Are there two triradii? A Star and a Delta?

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Patti wrote:Martijn!


Just as you predicted!


I have another triangle sample to present....


A solid triangular plot!



("A Child is Born" page 126)

I would, however, place the triradial point at the place where the ridge to the right of this triangular plot, abuts a ridge at the lower left.

It is interesting to trace the ridges. Are there two triradii? A Star and a Delta?

Patti, what was my 'prediction' that you have in mind?

By the way, the center of the 'trirangle' that we see is a ridge - so we can not describe that as a 'triangular plot' surrounded by 3 connected ridges (like is described by Penrose & Cummins & Midlo).

Please feel free to mark the 'delta' then I will show you where I mark it, okay?


PS. Here we can still apply Galton's rule... and I think we are confronted with a lot a irregular ridges in this example.

By the way, both of you have described this idea only for the 'empty' variant (= the 'island' variant with a dot). But you haven't even started sharing any ideas about the role of the concept in a 'complete triadius'... nor the irregular variants.

Lynn wrote:

In a 'complete triradius' (what patti calls 'star shape') then the 3 ridges have converged right in, so that they join in the centre. So there is no 'interspace' between them to colour in. Our idea isn't really necessary when there is an obvious 'star' or even 'C&M type delta/triangular' triradius. But when neither of those are there, the idea of the 'triradial area' is very useful.
In the irregular variants, if you look at Schaumann & Alter's examples where there are small ridges in this area, then the 'triradial area' is still useful to locate, because the triradial point is in the centre, regardless which small ridge variants are in that area. When you come to trace the radiants, if there are only small or broken ridges in the centre of this area, then we continue to the next ridge - so we would anyway end up on the ridges that Patti labelled 'triradius'.


You are focussed on the 'triradial area', and not noticing that we have included the ridges around it, just as Schaumann & Alter did in their 6 examples of 'ridges in the area of the triradius'. I don't see any contraditction with Schaumann & Alter. I have said, and Patti labelled on her drawing, the triraidus is the ridges that surround the triradial area. that is the most important thing to look at. As I said, for a 'true triradius' these 3 ridges meet so there is no 'interspace' (Galton's word, but it is also a word that generally describes 'the area in between') or 'triradial area' to colour in. When there is a true triradius of 3 ridges meeting at 120 degree angles, we don't need to concern ourselves with 'the triradial area' because it has kind-of 'imploded' to become the triradial point itself!

Patti wrote:

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Patti wrote:Martijn!


Just as you predicted!


I have another triangle sample to present....


A solid triangular plot!



("A Child is Born" page 126)

I would, however, place the triradial point at the place where the ridge to the right of this triangular plot, abuts a ridge at the lower left.

It is interesting to trace the ridges. Are there two triradii? A Star and a Delta?

Patti, what was my 'prediction' that you have in mind?

By the way, the center of the 'trirangle' that we see is a ridge - so we can not describe that as a 'triangular plot' surrounded by 3 connected ridges (like is described by Penrose & Cummins & Midlo).

Please feel free to mark the 'delta' then I will show you where I mark it, okay?


PS. Here we can still apply Galton's rule... and I think we are confronted with a lot a irregular ridges in this example.

Don't you see the actual ridge shaped itself like a triangle - not a groove, but solid ridge material?

Regarding your prediction, you said something to the effect to Lynn that she was encouraging me to continue with more triangles. So I obliged. (not intentionally)

Martijn (admin) wrote:
I think that this implicates that you position the 'triradial point' in the location of the red dot in the picture below. Correct?

Patti wrote:

Martijn (admin) wrote:
I think that this implicates that you position the 'triradial point' in the location of the red dot in the picture below. Correct?

No, I wouldn't place it at the red dot. Not even an option. I worked the pattern out on my laptop yesterday, but my laptop is at the office. I'll upload it another time.

Patti wrote:

Where you placed the yellow dot is where I also see a potential triradius, actually the fbi type lines, but if you move inward as instructed to the almost Y shape below the solid triangular shape, one side has an ending ridge, which is the same as you traced lower down. So if the lower one counts as parallel diverging ridges (and I think it would) the higher up/closer to the pattern should as well.

So I would place the triradial point on the triangular ridge. The whole thing would be the triradial point. The type lines form a sort of Y shape immediately below.

Yes Patti, I can understand why you see it that way.

But we have to be aware of Galton's rule - so you can not describe both points (my golden dot + the solid ridge triangle as a triradius) as a triradial point.


PS. Sorry, now I no longer understand your earlier words:

"I would, however, place the triradial point at the place where the ridge to the right of this triangular plot, abuts a ridge at the lower left."

(Sounds like you were talking about a point on the ridge-side of the triangle, but now you're only talking about a point on the left-side of the trirangle.... )