Suppose you walk into a room where the wall on the left, the wall in front, and the floor are all mirrors. (The walls and the floor are mutually perpendicular.)
If you hold up a ball, then how many images of the ball can you see in the mirrors?
Note
: The images shown in the figure are just the primary images.
This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try
refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and,
finally, (c)
loading the
non-javascript version of this page
. We're sorry about the hassle.
I don't understand why the answer is 7. Surely each primary image will be reflected in each perpendicular mirror, which would give us 9 images.
Log in to reply
Where are the primary images located? Will a primary image be reflected in all three mirrors?
Consider an observation point between two perpendicular mirrors: We will only see 2 secondary images of a ball when they are observed near where the mirrors meet, but they will not be whole images. They will become a composite of a single observed ball - The more we see of one secondary image, the less we see of the other secondary image. There are brief and subtle moments in this video that demonstrate this.
It is also possible for one of the secondary images not to be seen from a given observation point. In which case, a full secondary image can be seen in the other mirror.
The total number of whole balls created by secondary images in this scenario is 1, rather than 2.
If a 3rd mutually perpendicular mirror is introduced, we will have 2 such scenarios, which means there will be 7 whole balls observed, instead of 9.
This precluded the possibility of standing at a wall in which case one has a line image projection, or in corners which has a double line image. This analysis also has a fault in that the corner has only partial images that are rotationally symmetric. this yields the illusion of a solitary image. If one considers the partials and every path then one gets 12 images (3 primary, 9 secondary {6 from the edges, 3 from the corners}). Also, being not so serious... We have two eyes observing, thus we observe two of everything.
Log in to reply
Interesting point about the partial images. But this analysis takes its cues from the way the problem and its answers are presented.
It sounds like you would want to raise a report to get a clearer definition on what we are supposed to be identifying - whole images or partial images.
Could you elaborate on what you mean by "line image projection" and "double line image"?
First of all you have 2 eyes which can not look in 3 directions in the same time. So, YOU CAN LOOK ONLY IN TWO MIRRORS SIMULTANEOUSLY. Meaning you see the reflection of the image in two mirrors and if you discount the secondary images reflected from one mirror to the other you see only 2 images of your ball.
Log in to reply
You are allowed to move your eyes, and the whole point of this problem is to include secondary and tertiary images if they can be seen.
6 reflections! Not 7! Where would the 7th be??
Log in to reply
Pictured it in my minds eye! It's 7 because the one in the vertex of the mirrors! Clever
I believe the number of reflections also depend upon where the observer is standing.
Log in to reply
Regardless of the number of partial secondary & tertiary images the can be counted, we will perceive the same number of whole balls.
I will try to add more detail on this in a few days.
@Pranshu Gaba I'd really like to see a more comprehensive solution to this problem. Why are there only 7 images? Why aren't there more considering that there are images, and images of images and so on..?
Log in to reply
Could you elaborate on what you think would make my solution more comprehensive? I have tried to explain how secondary images (images of images) count towards the number of perceived balls. Would you like more detail on this?
(I'm currently on holiday, and only have access to my mobile phone, so I can't currently provide detailed diagrams to help explain my solution. But I will do so once I return.)
Ah, I didn't originally read your comment correctly. You're looking for an explanation of why 'infinitely many' is not an acceptable answer.
I'll try to add that, but it's probably best explained with a diagram (which will take me a few days to be in a position to create one myself.).
This can help visualize the positions of the images formed: the seven images and the actual ball together form the eight vertices of a cuboid. The three mirrors form the three planes of symmetry of the cuboid.
The three mirrors form eight octants, the ball is placed in one of the octants, and an image is formed in each of the seven other octants.
I will see myself reflected in every (3) mirror, every (3) edge and in the (1) corner. That is 7 times.
But why are those the only images?
If you regard the mirrors as x = 0, y = 0 and z = 0, then (a,b,c) is reflected to (-a,b,c), (a,-b,c), (a,b,-c), (a,-b,-c), (-a,b,-c), (-a,-b,c) and (-a,-b,-c). Further reflections repeat these. Simpler to say that we have 2x2x2 choices of whether or not to attach a minus sign. (a,b,c) is the original, so that leaves seven.
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
Each plane of reflection will not only reflect the ball, but the reflected images in the other mirrors as well.
Are we identifying partial images or only 'whole' balls?
Given that there is only one correct answer, we are being asked how many 'whole' balls (perceived whole balls) we will see in the mirrors, rather than counting individual partial secondary/tertiary images, because the number of partial secondary/tertiary images may vary, depending on our observation point.
Partial images may occur in the corners (where mirrors meet), but a single perceived ball will be comprised of the partial images in such cases - As seen below, the left and right balls are primary images, and the middle ball is actually 2 partial secondary images of the left and right primary images, but they are perceived as a single ball - The more you see of one secondary image, the less you see of the other.
Image credit: http://idol.union.edu/malekis/CVision2003/
While observing from within the reflection range of 2 perpendicular mirrors (I.e. not behind the mirrors), it is also possible to have an observation point where a secondary image cannot be seen in one of the mirrors (not even partially). But in this case, a whole secondary image will be seen in the other mirror. So the number of perceived whole balls created from secondary images between any 2 given perpendicular mirrors is alway equal to 1 - this is true regardless of whether it is made up of partial secondary images, or a single whole secondary image.
Why are there not an infinite number of balls?
Image credit: https://m.meritnation.com
Once an incident ray has been reflected, it wont return to the mirror again unless there is another mirror on the same axis facing the opposite direction to reflect it back.
Because each mirror is mutually perpendicular (each exclusively existing on a different axis), it will only be possible for an incident ray to be reflected off each mirror once at most.
In addition to the 3 mirrors described in this problem, the rear wall, the ceiling, and the right wall would also need to be mirrors for 'infinitely many' to be a correct answer.
Why are there 7?
If we consider that each mirror doubles the number of perceived balls (including the original ball):
We then need to account for the fact that the original ball counts as one of the 8 observed balls, but isn't counted as a reflection.
Thus, 7 whole balls are perceived in the mirrors.