/sci/ - Science & Math

This cube is 4d
you just have to wait

>>2100506
not gonna lie, i lol'd.

>>2100506
Win

>>2100506

Haha, genius!

>>2100506
icwutudidther.jpg

The 3d cube is not really 3d but is an illusion of 3d that is actually 3d. It looks 3d, but the 2d tesseract does not look 4d, it just looks like a 3d see-through box within a box or box behind a box.

SInce you can show 3d in 2d, but not 4d in 2d, then would it be possible to express an illusion of 4d in 3d?

>>2100493
wat?

It appears you have solved my first riddle, in that case...

>>2100537

>>2100537

A hologram of a 4D cube?

We wouldn't be able to comprehend it because we don't see in 4 dimensions.

>>2100557

http://tinyurl.com/2ffrap5

>>2100557

mothballs

>>2100560
on paper we can only see 2 dimensions, yet we can comprehend a drawn cube and see it as a cube and not a 2d jumble of lines. I am starting to doubt your capacity for abstract thought, /sci/.

>>2100894

hmm interesting thought. maybe though, we can only see a cube drawn in 2d as a cube because we already know what it is supposed to look like. knowatimean?

>>2100537
I don't think so. There are no objects that we regularly interact with in a 4d way, so your brain would have no idea of how a 4d object would work. Because of that, I doubt a 3d projection would be helpful; we'd need to have experience with the object that was being projected first.

>>2100956
It would still be easier to "see" than with a 2d image if you can grasp the concept of a 4d object

>>2100912
>>2100956
well fuck

>>2100961
I found this tesseract, doesn't look much more spectacular than the 2d doodle.

>>2100894
Are you kidding?

The analogy doesn't hold for attempting to percieve a four dimensional object.

It's physically impossible for a human to do such a thing.

>>2100956
You don't own a watch? Or look at a clock?

>>2100506

I don't get the joke...can someone explain this to me?

It's not that we can't comprehend a 4th dimension, it's that if we were to see something 4 dimensional we could not distinguish the difference. We only see the 3 dimensions.

Pic related: it's a 4 dimensional tesseract

>>2101049
look up what 4d means

>>2101049
>implying time is the 4th spacial dimension

think we need to take time and relative distance in space into account

>>2100506
lmao'd

>>2101023
we are all leaving out time because it is not a spatial dimension. Pretend we are all implying we would look at these objects for more than an instant, then add one to every number followed by a d in this thread. Oh and quit being a prick.

I know, I know, I'm a giant fucking fag! I get it.

That being said, I actually do need some help with a bit of the scripting in my Java homework.

I'm trying to write an equals method in a class designed to allow writing and comparisons of two dimensional arrays.

Because it's an easy class, we get to assume that the array isn't jagged.

I'd appreciate if you didn't tell me exactly what's wrong with it, but just where I should look to find the problem.

Pic very related

>>2101049

Like a flatlander sees 2d cross sections of 3d objects, we can only see 3d cross sections of 4d objects. What are we seeing cross sections of? Duration. We can't see more than one section of time at any given point. Although our past and future certainly exists, we can only move along the axis and observe what is going on at the specific point. God, were you born yesterday or what?

>>2101098

Lol, wow.

I'm a giant fucking fag after all.

Meant this to be a new thread, obviously. Woops!

That's embarrasing.

>>2101102

Oh yeah so what guy implied is that by staring at it, you're moving along the durational axis which he's implying is the fourth axis, although even staring at something you still can only see what happens at an infinitely small cross section of time. Feels badman.

How can you believe in the 4th dimensin if it is only a guessem? 9a thereom0

>>2101008
with that one it's like i can come tantalizingly close to imagining what a real 4d one would look like.
>>2101062
that one i can't get past the fact that it's a cube inside a cube.

>>2100956
OP's pic is a 3D representation of a 4D object.
If you take a 3D cube made out of edges, its shadow would look like a 2D cube.
the 3D tesseract is the shadow a 4D cube would project onto the 3rd dimension

>>2101123
>tantalizingly close

idunno, the closest I can imagine is it's two cubes in two different times and the lines between are connecting the times.

>>2101136
op's pic is obviously 2d. being as it's a picture.

Time is not the 4th spacial dimension

>>2101108
>Too big of a fag to know how to delete posts

>>2101159
Yes. It's a 2D projection of a 3D projection of a Tesseract.

>>2101159
Of course it is 2D, the day I see a true 3D object on my computer is the day porn becomes much more interesting. I'm saying it could be made into a 3D object easily. see >>2101008

>>2101136
holy fuckshit you just fucked me in the brain!

but op's pic is a 2d representation of 4d, not a 3d representation of 4d.

>>2101157

nah man forget about time. time isn't really the 4th dimension. if we were in a 4 dimensional reality, then time would be the 5th dimension.

>>2101136
>>2101181
ok i get it now. If we could only see 2 dimensions we would only be able to see the drawn cube or the shadow of a cube from one direction which would be a square, which is nothing compared to the cube which you can observe from all directions. If we could only see one dimension we could only see the shadow of the square from one direction, which would be a line segment. Since we can see three dimensions we can see this>>2101008
which is just the shadow of the tesseract from one direction, which is pathetic compared to a real tesseract, which I can't even imagine.

Are there any other 4d shapes that have been though up besides the tesseract?

>>2101181
No, op's pic is a 2d representation of a 3d-representation of a 4d.

>diCaprio_gotta_go_deeper.jpg

>>2101183
I'm not implying that the closest I can imagine is very close at all

>>2101239
roflrofl

>>2101224
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-sphere

The axis of the fourth spatial demension is at right angles to the axes of the first, second and third spatial demensions.
You will never comprehend it.

>>2100537

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXYXuHVTS_k

Found that video was reminded of this post.

No matter how hard I try at the most all I see is two cubes on top of each other. I can see it rotating, but it still looks like a jumble of two cubes.