Observable is pushing it. Technically observable, sure, but ~1dpi misplaced is… unlikely to be noticeable. Plus, if that level of accuracy is required simply adding more nodes improves accuracy exponentially. Not least, the “standard” approximation really should be updated in software, as modern 4-node approximations are down to 0.005%, almost an order of magnitude better.
> simply adding more nodes improves accuracy exponentially According to another comment, it actually improves at O(n^6).
Observable is pushing it. Technically observable, sure, but ~1dpi misplaced is… unlikely to be noticeable. Plus, if that level of accuracy is required simply adding more nodes improves accuracy exponentially. Not least, the “standard” approximation really should be updated in software, as modern 4-node approximations are down to 0.005%, almost an order of magnitude better.
If you are misplaced by 1dpi, then your "1200 dpi" is actually 600 dpi. If you got a machine that's accurate to 1200 dpi presumably you want 1200 dpi and not 600.
That’s not true in this case. It would still be 1200 dpi but the approximation of one curve is off by 1 dpi in some dimension.
They are IEC prefixes, complementary to the SI prefixes, and they only are defined for positive exponents. kibi : ki : 2^10 mebi : Mi : 2^20 gibi : Gi : 2^30 tebi : Ti : 2^40 ... Conveniently, these numbers are fairly close to 10^3, 10^6, 10^9, and 10^12 respectively (but with increasing error: 2^40 is almost 10% larger than 10^12, whereas 2^10 is only 2.4% larger than 10^3). This leads to a lot of conflation, mess,…
I think it's hard to call it misreporting when they've been reporting it the same way since before the standard you'd rather they use existed.
Yes, that's the point. 1. PDF is to become a standard CAD interchange format. 2. Using PDF where 0.03% matters is insane. 3. If CAD requires 0.03% tolerance, then using PDF as a standard CAD interchange format is insane. I would imagine you generally want arbitrary precision for CAD.
Using PDF as a standard (for anything) is insane. I mean it was nice before Adobe backpedaled and tried to milk it for everything and now the format is anything but portable.
> I remember the first week of Geometry, they told us that the drawings of squares and circles and whatnot printed in the textbook are not intended to be accurate, so don't bother measuring them to get the answer. I considered, and to this day consider, inaccurate figures in textbooks to be sloppy job by lazy people . Sure, measuring the solution off a drawing is (in math classes) missing the point of the exercise, b…
> inaccurate figures in textbooks Sometimes it's not about being accurate, sometimes it's about the figures in the textbook representing unrepresentable, impossible situations on whatever geometry you're operating on. say euclidean geometry. Casual things like triangles where the sum of internal angles doesn't match π. Triangles where the sum of length of the two smaller sides is larger that the larger side. Being ab…
I do agree with that, and I understand there are many things that just plain cannot be represented accurately on paper - whether through drawings or symbolically. But once you draw an illustration of some thing, I'd expect everything about the drawing to be depicting the real thing as accurately as possible, unless explicitly marked otherwise. If you're not doing that, you may as well skip the illustration entirely, because it confuses things more than it helps.
How can I distinguish between errors of perception, errors in manufacturing, and errors of perception of the designer who eyeballed circles on a computer screen with non-square pixels?
With a coffee cup, you should be able to take a micrometer (or a piece of string) and verify roundness of the base object to whatever arbitrary precision your heart desires (and your reality will allow).
I don't think I've ever seen a coffee cup that would let me do that. As I said earlier, I don't really trust their roundness, and that's on top of them usually being made of some kind of ceramic and thus having grain.
(Maybe a cheap, single-use plastic cup would be smooth enough and stiff enough and round enough, given the production process.)