Page 3 of 8~112 min topic

When computers see

Build the first working 3x3 plus-sign classifier

Page 3 implements the shortest complete path for the 3×3 plus-sign image classifier with inspectable intermediate values.

~14 min this pageImplementation

1Learn the idea

Read

Implement the minimal working path

Build only what the claim requires: plus fixtures score positive; blank/noise fixtures do not. Prefer boring, deterministic code over frameworks you cannot yet explain. Run the path twice; identical output on this fixture is a feature, not a lack of creativity.

Read

Run the working path

def classify(img):
 flat=[p for row in img for p in row]; score=sum(flat[i] for i in [1,3,4,5,7])
 return ('plus' if score>=4 else 'other',score)
print(classify([[0,1,0],[1,1,1],[0,1,0]]))

Expected evidence: fragile pixel classifier. Read each printed intermediate as part of the argument that the path works—not as decoration.

Read

Trace one input end to end

Narrate the journey from raw input to result for a single example from plus, blank, and distractor 3×3 grids. If you cannot name an intermediate, the implementation is still too opaque for this lab. Only after this path is solid should you generalize data sources or UI.

Read

Lab notebook: intermediates worth printing

While implementing the 3x3 plus-sign classifier, print or log at least three intermediates that map to the claim (plus fixtures score positive; blank/noise fixtures do not). Good intermediates are values a teammate could recompute with a calculator or diff. Bad intermediates are framework traces you cannot explain.

Re-run with plus, blank, and distractor 3×3 grids twice. If the second run differs, either the path is nondeterministic (document the seed) or you have hidden global state—both are lab bugs until named.

Read

Worked judgment

Stop adding features once the path supports classify tiny binary images as plus vs not-plus with inspectable features. Extra UI, extra tools, or extra models belong in later chapters. The mastery bar for this page is simply: a deterministic end-to-end path with intermediates.

Read

Why this stage matters for the 3x3 plus-sign classifier

At the implementation stage for computer-sees, the job is narrower than finishing a product demo. You are creating one progressive evidence piece about plus, blank, and distractor 3×3 grids that later pages inherit without redefining success. Keep that fixture small enough to inspect by hand, keep outputs copy-pasteable as text, and refuse to narrate this baseline as if it were a production SLA: pixel-sum threshold accuracy on the same four images.

For this page specifically, success looks like a deterministic path with printed intermediates while still centering the user decision to classify tiny binary images as plus vs not-plus with inspectable features. If you cannot point to a file, command, or assertion that proves that for the 3x3 plus-sign classifier, stay on this page instead of advancing.

Glossary: computer vision · Glossary: convolutional neural network

Previous · Next

Go deeper

Before you start

Why this matters

Without running code, predict the final output for fixture plus, blank, and distractor 3×3 grids. Name one intermediate value that would prove the prediction. Then answer: what could look successful while actually being wrong at this stage for the 3x3 plus-sign classifier?

In the wild

See how this idea shows up as a product and a company — then come back to the lesson. Skills transfer across vendors.

Check your understanding

Page assessment

Answer from memory. Completion is saved from this evidence, not from opening the next page.

1. Can you narrate every intermediate value?
2. Is the fixture deterministic and independently inspectable?
3. Did you avoid framework behavior you cannot explain yet?
4. Does the output still support the decision: classify tiny binary images as plus vs not-plus with inspectable features?

All responses are required.