Skip to main content

A personal annotations of Veach's thesis (17) pp.227-240

p.227 Probability density

When I calculate the probability density p(\overline{x}) of given path \overline{x}, density is

In p.228, the author said that it is also possible to directory compute the P. I thought this is just replace p with P and I fail to see how we could compute it. Here P is a density of samples, that I should decide it. This mean I could compute directory. For example, if I sample uniformly, then the density becomes uniform. In a sense, I need to decide it or if I choose a method, then it automatically chosen. Therefore, there is no more explanation here. But it is actually difficult part for me.


p.232 BSDF's value is less than infinity

BSDF is a sort of transfer function (signal processing sense), that is the ratio of input light and output light. Therefore, I thought why this can be infinity. I totally forgot this is a density function. In this case, total reflection gives you the Dirac delta, therefore, the value is infinite. There are some cases the value becomes more than 1. But in any cases, if we integrate in some domain, this should be equal or less than 1.

p.236 Scattering events at Psi_L and Psi_W

This is a cool idea. We consider the light source is a reflector that its light source is infinitely close. If we think as like this, every scene element can be a reflection surface. No need to think the light source is a special case. For example, a object emits light case is not the special case anymore.

One of the Feynman's books (I think it is Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!) has an episode. Feynman tried to model an electron as self affecting particle. Since the center of the electron seems singular point of the electro magnetic field. He tried to get rid of this singularity. I think he wrote the idea doesn't work unfortunately, but, this Veach's idea just reminded me this story.

p.240 Chains

I think the chain here explained is
But he did not write this in his notation. I just wonder why he did not write that in this way. Or I might be wrong.


Acknowledgements
Thanks to Leo and Daniel to give me the answer regarding with my questions of these pages.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why parallelogram area is |ad-bc|?

Here is my question. The area of parallelogram is the difference of these two rectangles (red rectangle - blue rectangle). This is not intuitive for me. If you also think it is not so intuitive, you might interested in my slides. I try to explain this for hight school students. Slides:  A bit intuitive (for me) explanation of area of parallelogram  (to my site, external link) . 

Geometric Multiplicity: eignvectors (2)

If eigenvectors of a matrix A are independent, it is a happy property. Because the matrix A can be diagonalized with a matrix S that column vectors are eigenvectors of A . For example, Why this is a happy property of A? Because I can find A's power easily. A^{10} is not a big deal. Because Λ is a diagonal matrix and power of a diagonal matrix is quite simple. A^{10} = SΛ^{10} S^{-1} Then, why if I want to compute power of A ? That is the same reason to find eigenvectors. Eigenvectors are a basis of a matrix. A matrix can be represented by a single scalar. I repeat this again. This is the happy point, a matrix becomes a scalar. What can be simpler than a scalar value. But, this is only possible when the matrix S's columns are independent. Because S^{-1} must be exist. Now I come back to my first question. Is the λ's multiplicity related with the number of eigenvectors? This time I found this has the name. Geometric multiplicity (GM): the number of in...

Gauss's quote for positive, negative, and imaginary number

Recently I watched the following great videos about imaginary numbers by Welch Labs. https://youtu.be/T647CGsuOVU?list=PLiaHhY2iBX9g6KIvZ_703G3KJXapKkNaF I like this article about naming of math by Kalid Azad. https://betterexplained.com/articles/learning-tip-idea-name/ Both articles mentioned about Gauss, who suggested to use other names of positive, negative, and imaginary numbers. Gauss wrote these names are wrong and that is one of the reason people didn't get why negative times negative is positive, or, pure positive imaginary times pure positive imaginary is negative real number. I made a few videos about explaining why -1 * -1 = +1, too. Explanation: why -1 * -1 = +1 by pattern https://youtu.be/uD7JRdAzKP8 Explanation: why -1 * -1 = +1 by climbing a mountain https://youtu.be/uD7JRdAzKP8 But actually Gauss's insight is much powerful. The original is in the Gauß, Werke, Bd. 2, S. 178 . Hätte man +1, -1, √-1) nicht positiv, negative, imaginäre (oder gar um...