Talk:Infinity mirror

	This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Visual arts This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsVisual arts

I have seen the use of infinity mirrors in several different artworks at the MFA Boston and the ICA Boston. I also have seen the effect used in amusement park darkrides. Reify-tech (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Does anybody know how long the half-transparent ones have been around? Are they a recent invention or just a trend? I've only seen gadgets based around them in the last few years, but the technology to create should have been around for a good hundred years, see One-way mirror. Grumbel45 (talk) 08:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

There's patents going back to the 1930s. GliderMaven (talk) 10:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm relatively certain that this statement (currently in the article) is incorrect:

When studied using the principles of geometrical optics, the series of repeating images form the infinite mathematical surface known as Gabriel's Horn, or Torricelli's Trumpet, named in honor of Italian mathematician Evangelista Torricelli, who first studied it. In theory, such a surface is infinite in area but encloses a finite volume.

The cited source ^[1] just mentions, that "This mathematical peculiarity is closely related to a geometric object known as Gabriel’s Horn". That is certainly true, because calculating the total area (actual area on the mirror, not the apparent area) of all visible reflections in the infinity mirror is very similar to calculating the volume of Gabriel's Horn. However saying that "the series of repeating images form the infinite mathematical surface known as Gabriel's Horn" is just not true - the series of repeating images instead form a infinitly long Cuboid because the apparent size of all reflections is the same, only the actually used area one the mirror gets smaller, because the apparent distance gets bigger.

I think it's clear, that the sentence in question must be removed. I am however wondering, whether it is neccessary to write a paragraph about the calculation of the total area and width of the reflections on the mirror (as a replacement for the current incorrect statement). Tslive.de (talk) 15:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply