"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:


> I had never heard of a Wada Basin until now. Fascinating. (And equally so
> because the effect was actually given a name!!)

There are SO many things out there, and in my opinion, too few people seriously
investigating them.  They're too busy with the petty things.
Cicero had many wise things to say, and too few know what they were.

>It's interesting that the paper
> discusses using FOUR touching spheres, but the image examples use only three.

"[First thou shalt define a spherical primitive,] then shalt thou count to
three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the
number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count
thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the
number three, being the third number, be reached, then [shalt thou render thine
ray-traced image]"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOrgLj9lOwk

> Seems that an odd number of spheres creates a more interesting look than an even
> number (my opinion, anyway.) Maybe that's because familiar kaleidoscope images
> are usually of 3,5 or 7 repeated 'segments', and I'm just used to that
> arrangement.

Or maybe it's just that you're an odd fellow  ;)

> A learned response, in other words.

Or perhaps there's some "organic" neurobiological response that's more
effectively stimulated with an arrangement of an odd number of objects than an
even number.

There's a great TED presentation by
Al Seckel: Visual illusions that show how we (mis)think

I found it very educational for a whole lot of reasons.

Post a reply to this message