[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 149 KB, 900x1125, 1593659122218.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11858975 No.11858975 [Reply] [Original]

Why can we represent 1D and 3D in 2D on a piece of paper but not 4D or beyond?

>> No.11859007

>>11858975
there is nothing preventing you from representing the fourth dimension on a piece of paper.

>> No.11859057

>>11859007
okay then do it

>> No.11859067
File: 21 KB, 219x122, 723979479.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11859067

>>11859057

>> No.11859071

>>11859067
The absolute madman

>> No.11859072

>>11859067
wtf

>> No.11859080

>>11858975
have my 4D *unzips*

>> No.11859266

>>11858975
You can, you just have to abstract it a little or use more than one paper.

>> No.11859274
File: 12 KB, 349x323, 1576923572515.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11859274

>>11859057

>> No.11859307
File: 50 KB, 500x375, tumblr_pdjhp1F5Hl1xzgpe1o1_500.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11859307

a one dimensional figure has a 0 dimensional shadow
a 2d figure has a 1d
a 3d figure has a 2d shadow
a 4d figure would have a 3d shadow.
still can't imagine it?
a 3d paper twisted in a certain way (mobius strip) is basically 2d because it has only one surface and (not really but) technically two axis. imagine the same thing but with a 4th dimensional object bent in a way to make it have 3 axis.
still can't?
imagine a cube where each surface is a cube and all of this is one cube.
still can't
you know that square/cube visualization for the quadratic and cubic formula? well imagine how it would look like for the quartic formula
still can't?
[eqn]e^4[/eqn]

>> No.11859332
File: 1.64 MB, 400x300, sip.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11859332

>>11859080
Why do you have four dicks, Anon?

>> No.11859345

>>11859332
I cut it off in 4 parts, for max profix (fivesomes are awesome)

>> No.11859413

>>11859274
Why does everyone draw the tesseract with so much stronger perspective in the fouth dimension than in the third?

>> No.11859423
File: 264 KB, 1824x1390, 4D on 2D.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11859423

>>11859057
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0Te_lUyOjg

>> No.11859581
File: 68 KB, 1280x720, maxresdefault.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11859581

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_B5GpsbSQw

>> No.11859682

The difference is our brain can easily recognize a 3D cube drawn on a paper, because we live in 3D. A 4D cube can't be intuitively recognized. Also you can't represent a 2D shape on a 1D line.

>> No.11859713
File: 82 KB, 631x600, Complete_graph_K10.svg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11859713

This is a 9 dimensional simplex.

>> No.11859812

>>11859067
YOOOO WTFFF

>> No.11859884

>>11859307
Fuck that was pathetic.
>tumblr image
Not even slightly surprising.

>> No.11859889

>>11858975
There's no such thing as "4D or beyond". Reality consists of exactly three dimensions, not more, not less. And no, time isn't a dimension.

>> No.11859932

>>11859889
You're an idiot.

>> No.11859949

>>11859889
>time isn't a dimension.
Imagine being this retarded.

>> No.11860208

>>11859057

Here we go;

4th dimension.

Time.

That human woman is getting older and will eventually die.

I got that information from the image.

>> No.11860219

>>11859889

How many coordinates would you need to have been in this picture with her if you start on Earth? What about if you start on the moon?

>> No.11860225
File: 342 KB, 267x200, rekt.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11860225

>>11859067

>> No.11860253

>>11858975
We can represent anything on a piece of paper, the problem is it won't make sense to our brain because we don't observe it in nature.

Dimensions are purely theoretical either way, it's easy to dwell on it and get lost, looking at you string theorists

>> No.11860258

>>11859889
It doesn't even consist of dimensions anon, that's just a model we use to describe what we see

>> No.11860623

>>11859884
shows us your simple explanation, i'm waiting

>> No.11860638

>make 3d model visualizer
>add slider that changes its apperance
>name slider time
congrats u got a representation

example:
3d model a nail
add time slider
time slider increases rust
profit

>> No.11860662

There is no difficulty in projecting down from n>3 dimensions down to 2 dimensions. However, while in projecting from 3d to 2d you can say which points are nearer and which farther, and have the nearer points hide the farther points You can''t do that in the same way if you are projecting from 4d to 2d. Some points may be nearer than others, but you can also have many points at the same distance

>> No.11860694

>>11858975
what you actually draw is only 1-skeleton or 2-skeleton of the object. 1-skeleton or a 2-skeleton as an approximation of a 4D object or higher is not sufficient at all.

>> No.11860778

>>11858975
Mommy

>> No.11860786

>>11859067
That’s a cartoon not a paper

>> No.11860807

>>11858975
Because of the degrees of separation. You can't represent 3D in 1D either.

>> No.11860872

>>11858975
an object with
x,y,z values
and then different x,y, and z axis values
at seperate time interval
(hence, a T axis) or time axis

whats weirder is that the page is not 1 dimensional

if you put it in an equation it can move through the number line smoothly with all potental decimal places of motion.. but I don't know about using non-integer numbers or negative numbers, it seems like sometimes arithmetic would produce a value which is totally unintended by whatever was intended by the model or the equation itself.

>> No.11860877 [DELETED] 
File: 61 KB, 600x584, TIMESAND___Death.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11860877

She's not going to make it.

>> No.11860912

You can't draw 1D on paper.

>> No.11860923

>>11860912
>you can't draw a line
moron

>> No.11860983

>>11860912

All lines are one dimensional.

>> No.11861004

>>11860877
but she's cute, why would you do this tooky?

>> No.11861101

>>11860225
"dimensons... I've got 'em"

>> No.11861109

>>11860923
>>11860983
No, all lines you draw have a thickness, which is the 2nd dimension.

>> No.11861324

>>11861109
Fuck you, the lines I draw have depth too. They're 3d.

>> No.11861351

>>11861324
My lines can time-travel so they're 4D

>> No.11861366

>>11858975
You can always project onto a hyperplane to lower a space of dimension n + 1 to a space of dimension n. Do it enough times and you'll reach a 2D projection.

>> No.11861378

>>11859067
hol up

>> No.11861436

>>11861109

Then you didn't draw a line.

¡Qed!

>> No.11861531

>>11858975
I only like 3d girls, 4dpd

>> No.11862926

>>11859274
/thread

>> No.11862933

>>11858975

Of course you can.

>> No.11862939 [DELETED] 

>>11860225

American culture is centered around niggers. They have holidays for niggers. They killed hundreds of thousands of white men to free niggers. They listen to nigger music. They elect a nigger as their president. They dress and act like niggers. They draw the entirety of their modern culture from niggers. They post sassy gifs about niggers. They watch sportsball in worship of niggers. Their biggest event of the year involves throwing parties in honor of niggers playing sports. They use nigger slang like "bruh" and "thot". When you say "Martin Luther" they're not thinking of the father of protestantism. They're thinking of the nigger. Their cities are completely overrun with niggers. They worship their ZOGbot police force disproportionately filled with niggers and their global police force of soldiers filled with niggers. Their women fuck niggers. Their men sit around watching nigger ball while their women sit around watching nigger talk shows. They worship niggers like Muhammad Ali and Michael Jordan and Michael Jackson and the late Mike Tyson while attacking the whites who actually built their country before niggers took over. Their movies are filled with niggers and their music charts are topped by niggers. They send niggers to the Olympics and celebrate when the niggers win because those niggers are true red blooded american niggers. They watch nigger porn to a point where "BBC" does not make them think of an international media company but about nigger penises instead. They will tell you how much they hate niggers and how the mutt's law meme is a stale joke and they are just pretending to love niggers but the evidence speaks for itself in that America has always been and will be a nation of nigger loving niggers.

>> No.11862974
File: 2.07 MB, 1329x1429, 1590518821656.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11862974

>>11862939
Absolutely exhalted.

>> No.11862992

>>11859307
neat expansion
do it for dim5

>> No.11863003

>>11861324
>>11861436
So you agree that you can't draw 1D then.

>> No.11863032
File: 58 KB, 580x679, 1386500502065.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11863032

>>11859067

>> No.11863048

>>11859889
Please give this man the award "Idiot of the Year"

>> No.11863078
File: 1.32 MB, 907x678, d.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11863078

>>11860219
ive conquered all thee chippiees i eat lots

>> No.11863082

>>11859274
/thread

>> No.11863117

>>11860219
theta and phi
distance is a spook

>> No.11863120

>>11860208
You could also show a moving video, I suppose?

>> No.11863131

>>11859067
he fucking did lmao.

>> No.11863171

>>11863003
drawings are representations you idiot. By your logic I can't draw anything with a pencil except lumps of graphite

>> No.11863197

>>11861109
>still thinks line weight effects position
The based 1d line is the edge between foreground and background. There is no thickness only various degrees of focus.

>> No.11863222

>>11859932
>>11863048
Not an argument
>>11860258
True
>>11859949
>>11860219
>I can use it to measure shit so it must be a dimension
NEWS FLASH EVERYONE MY DICK IS A DIMENSION

>> No.11863409

>>11863003

No, but I agree that you can't.

>> No.11865158

>>11858975
I think that the frames of a movie are a four dimensional space represented as temporal slices of a 2D representation of a 3D space (instead of taking out time, you take out one spatial dimension).

>> No.11865193

>>11858975
Face 2 mirrors toward eachother

>> No.11865261

>>11859067
kek

>> No.11865264

>>11862939
HELLO, BASED DEPARTMENT?

>> No.11865282

>>11858975
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0WjV6MmCyM

>> No.11865336

>>11858975
We can represent 4d on a paper, but there are self intersections, just like when we put 3d on a paper

>> No.11865381

>>11859067
IMPOSSIBRU!!!!

>> No.11865382

>>11862939
>This post brought to you by plebbit

>> No.11865384

>>11865282
>carl sagan
You have to go back.

>> No.11865408

>>11858975
Try doing 2d on 1d

>> No.11866966

>>11859067
I call bullshit!

>> No.11867343
File: 216 KB, 468x895, 1563371486815.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11867343

>>11859067
YOOOOOOOOOOOO

>> No.11867390

dude just draw a clock lmao

>> No.11867430

>>11859413
probably because they're imagining it as a 3D cube within another 3D cube so they just extend the lines by the same amount they were extended from the square to make the original cube without understanding the fundamental difference between that and what they're trying to portray

>> No.11867445
File: 175 KB, 400x388, 1590461240649.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11867445

>>11859067

>> No.11867460

>>11858975
Look up Immanuel Kant. No further explanation needed. There is no four dimensional space, because there is no n-dimensional space. Space is not a generic term. Dimension is not a property of space, but a property of entities that appear in space. Dimension is only derived from space, but not a property of space. It is a property of an entity.

4D doesn't exist, since space of our experience only allows three lines that are perpendicular to one point to be constructed. Just because it is "logically" possible that there might exist a 4D entity, doesn't mean it does, when the opposite isn't exactly excluded. As Kant said: "Concepts without percepts are empty, percepts without concepts are blind." or as Kant said literally: "Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind" => We have no "content" of 4D, no experience, no percept of it. So, how do we even know it really exist?

All the Sci-Fi shit like hypercube, hyperspace, pentatope, etc. It's all BS. They're no 4D. They're just 3D. In fact, they're just special 3D entities, like a square is a special case of a rectangle. That's the only intuitive answer you could give, which is accurate. Calling it 4D is literally just dialectics, rhetorics.

>> No.11867484

>>11858975
i wonder what her armpits smell like

>> No.11867487

>>11859067
>implying space can actually be curved.
Curvature is not a property of space (space is not a generic term). Curvature is a property of entities.

>> No.11867505

>>11858975
It's simply that we don't live in a 4th dimensional universe.

>> No.11867533

>>11859067
put me in the screencap senpai

>> No.11867585
File: 1007 KB, 700x380, taxi driver clap.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11867585

>>11859067
bravo

>> No.11867599

>>11867460
True in a way but n-dimensional space is still a mathematically sound concept. I'll grant that the way your typical scifi movie-goer would understand it is BS.
The idea of n-dimensional space was understood by its progenitors as a branch of pure mathematics, not practical physics.

>> No.11867644

>>11862939
seething white boi

>> No.11867660
File: 56 KB, 1068x601, gigachad.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11867660

>>11862939
t.

>> No.11867694

>>11865382
>he doesn’t know

>> No.11867818

>>11867599
>True in a way but n-dimensional space is still a mathematically sound concept.
I agree, anon. But I never debated that the concept itself would be wrong. I debated the misue of the terms and misinterpretation of the concept. (and yes, scifi movies are heavily contributing to that dialectic) A theory, a concept can still be correct or useful, while its interpretation/reasoning is wrong. Take the epicycle model, for example, in which a geocentric worldview was assumed long ago. The model worked and was useful, a sound concept, but the reasoning/interpretation (geocentrism) behind it was wrong and we now know today that we're living in a heliocentric system. This is why Immanuel Kant should be teached in every school again. He provided a solid concept to prevent falling into dialectics by purpose or by mistake such like we see today. In fact, "n-dimensional space" isn't even the only kind of dialectic today. There are much more problems. But I doubt we'll ever be able to get rid of dialectics in science. It would require a fundamental change in the whole scientific community. Blame the dogmatism.

>The idea of n-dimensional space was understood by its progenitors as a branch of pure mathematics, not practical physics.
But that's exactly what I mean about dialectics. While the concept is supposed to be a branch of pure mathematics, it still tries to cross over into practical physics by obliterating terms and trying to "visualize" it in such a way as it would really exist, while (as I shown above) we do not even know whether there are 4D entities. The concept of "n-dimensional space" could as well be completely be modelled in a different way and still provide the same results that can be used practically. Like, if we would use the accurate approach I showed above, we would classify the "hypercube" not as a 4D entity, but as a special case of 3D entities independent whether these are possible to construct (in our concept of space as we experience it) or not.

>> No.11868883

>>11867484
Good question, I would also like to know this

>> No.11868888

>>11859067
I don't get it, how is this 4D? Any point on the paper can be specified by 2 real numbers regardless of how it is twisted.

>> No.11868907

go in a different direction and imagine that it's 90 degrees from all axis

>> No.11868925

Higher dimensions are a Jewish conspiracy

>> No.11869924
File: 4 KB, 436x378, geometic analy.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11869924

I have seen this used for proofs in multivariable analysis

>> No.11871387

If we can use a 2D piece of paper to represent a 3D figure, then why we don't use our 3D space to represent a 4D figure?

>> No.11871938

>>11871387
It exists, it's called projecting 4d into 3d. think about those tesseract animations

>> No.11871950

>>11858975
Why is 3 closer to 2 than 8?

>> No.11873204

>>11871950
Because 2 ate 8

>> No.11873220

Too many ads, shit gets gay

>> No.11873231

>>11867487
boy you need to get some element 115 in ya

>> No.11873240
File: 45 KB, 720x480, flatland.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11873240

>> No.11873266

>>11859274
Nigga, it's just 3D.

>> No.11873279

>>11873266
No it's not.

>> No.11873308

>>11873231
Not an argument. Point out what's wrong with it?
See the rest here: >>11867460

>> No.11873321

>>11867460
Maybe in this universe, but there could be other universes with higher dimensions possible.

>> No.11873326

>>11867460
You could say that if there's no 4D space then a 4D being is one who can freely move through time.

>> No.11873329

>>11873308
Gravity bends space, implying curvature

>> No.11873336

>>11873329
How does gravity (a property that we don't experience "on" space, but in objects in relation to other objects) imply curvature of space itself? Gravity is a property witnessed within objects interacting with other objects. A model that represents space as being curved is just that, a model. It might give you correct results (like the epicycle model back when everyone believed in the geocentric worldview), but it doesn't mean that the interpretation is correct. See Kant.

>> No.11873343

>>11873336
Gravity is matter being propelled along bent space by time.

>> No.11873346

>>11873336
See VSauce, Michael here.

>> No.11874674

>>11873343
that apple hit your head too hard lad
gravity is straight lines between two things
simple as

>> No.11876447

>>11873266
its 3d to you because your brain is physically incapable from perceiving the 4th dimension.

t. i listened to the scientists that think einstein is an rard

>> No.11876703

>>11867599
>mathematically sound concept
You can make a computer process a number which contains more digits than there could be protons to fill the universe.
It's a mathematically sound concept.
You still can't fit more protons in a given amount of space.

So like one anon said, time isn't a physical dimension. Like another said, dimensions aren't physical objects.
These are just math concepts we use to quantify the physical properties of matter. Height, width, depth, time, none of these physically exist. There is no 4th physical dimension.
You're all rubes led astray by popsci.

>> No.11877016

onion skinning in animation is 4d

>> No.11877045
File: 51 KB, 600x605, 337.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11877045

>>11859067
Put me in screencap pls

>> No.11879150

>>11876703
>popsci
none of your post even contradicts what i said. you're just a brainlet who learned a new buzzword.

>> No.11879933

>>11876703
Process the number in what way?
It can't add two such numbers together. It couldn't count occurrences of the digits. Everything in the computer would be long gone before it could even meaningfully look at the digits.
Can you also stop asserting random shit with no basis.

>> No.11880867

>>11858975
>represent 3D in 2D
we can't.
we draw it's shadow

>> No.11881373

>>11858975
well your vision is 2d so to speak and what you call 3d is just perspective drawing or your brain rendering the 3d world in 2d, you can feel in 3d though which is cool

>> No.11881546

>>11858975
It's pretty easy, anon. Take a piece of paper, and write down
[math]span \langle (1,0,0,0), (0,1,0,0), (0,0,1,0), (0,0,0,1) \rangle [\math]

>> No.11881549

>>11881546
Ooops, used to backward slash
[math]span \langle (1,0,0,0), (0,1,0,0), (0,0,1,0), (0,0,0,1) \rangle [/math]

>> No.11881576

>>11867460
If so, what is the dimension of a function, say [math]\exp (x)[\math]?

>> No.11882314
File: 19 KB, 251x251, 1457565727783.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11882314

>>11859067

>> No.11883055

>>11868888
I don't really know anything about 4D physics because I can't conceptualize it that well and I don't know if the picture is memeing, but it has to do with the same physical entity (the pencil) being on two points of the same plane (the paper).

Correct me if I missed the ELI5.

>> No.11883062

>>11858975
The piece of paper and beyond is 4d.
There, we did it.

>> No.11883068

>>11859307
>a 3d paper twisted in a certain way (mobius strip) is basically 2d because it has only one surface
except said piece of paper literally has 4 surfaces

>> No.11883072

>>11859713
9 axes? I don’t see how that is 9d.

>> No.11883074
File: 74 KB, 911x554, tem6da3izux11.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11883074

>>11883068
wrong retard, it has a whole lot more than 4

>> No.11883077

>>11860208
Anon, listen carefully, I want you to understand one very important thing. You are a retarded fuck and always will be. Take this advice. Keep your mouth shut.

>> No.11883083

>>11860983
Truthfully anything you create in this world will have 3 dimensions. Even a smear of graphite on a page has a length, width, and height measurable in Planck lengths.

>> No.11883086

>>11867460
Is philosophy the "I can't understand math, but want to pretend I do to appear intelligent to others" major?

>> No.11883088

>>11858975
We can though? Any dimensional space can be projected onto a lower dimensional space

>> No.11883821

>>11859067
3D BRAINLETS BTFO

>> No.11884027

>>11858975
Scientifically speaking, what would Taylor Swift’s feet smell like?

>> No.11884034

>>11858975

Well here's how you do it.

Write this on a piece of paper

[1,0,4,2]

There you have a 4D object

>> No.11884864

>>11883086
Bad polemics and not an argument. Is that all you have to offer or will you respond accordingly?

>> No.11885379

>>11883086
philosophy has all the difficulty of math with none of the easy abstractions to make it digestible
one of the smartest people I've ever met was a philosophy major

>> No.11885437

>>11858975
because 4d is a mathematical abstraction, and isn't real.

>> No.11885966

>>11859067
brainlets won't get this screencap

>> No.11885991

>>11867460
this is some of the most retarded shit imaginable.

dimension is something *we define*, something that exists *only as a property of abstract spaces*

>> No.11886000

>>11859884
>muh tumblr and adds nothing else
post 2011 4chan was a mistake

>> No.11886004

>>11885379
lmaooo, philosophers be like : i can't tell if this is a chair or not, guess i'll just stand

>> No.11886037
File: 2.10 MB, 320x240, Laughter.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11886037

>>11859007
>>11859057
>>11859067
At last...

>> No.11887020

>>11859067
I dont get it

>> No.11887046
File: 41 KB, 537x537, 1518503542491.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11887046

>>11859067
I'm gonna pretend to get it so I can be in the inevitable screencap.

>> No.11887073

>>11858975
I clicked this thread just because of the OP pic

>> No.11887231

>>11886004
You just prove yourself that you are dumber than who you really are. Most maths and sciences derives from the aspects of Philosophy, thats why you can think for yourself and not just be a hive mind NPC like who you truly are before. Stop trolling if youre not contributing here, faggot.

>> No.11887259

>>11858975
there is no 4d retard, thats just 3d in different context pretending to be more.

>> No.11887306

>>11858975
because 4D is not something you can see with your eyes

>> No.11887395

>>11858975
taylor swift is delicate
4d would have to do with observing
the paper in ways that are not plausible under time constraints
its a perceptual thing that must have an understood cause and effect to be observed in any manner

>> No.11887411
File: 493 KB, 440x330, 1593544349802.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11887411

>>11859067
This is bullshit and it pleases me greatly

>> No.11887526

>>11887231
would help to speak english bro...

nah but for real, the fact that philosophers can't reach consensus on questions they've been asking for thousands of years shows either

(1) Methods of philosophical inquiry are pretty shitty
(2) Philosophical questions cant be meaningfully answered, and are thus badly formed questions
(3) Philosophers aren't actually interested in answering those questions, and are more interested jerking themselves off with ""clever"" arguments

>> No.11887555

>>11885379
A bunch of mathematicians have got old to the point where they're no longer good at math and then made contributions to philosophy. It doesn't go the other way around

>> No.11887856
File: 12 KB, 284x276, 0e10be881da632e35b3255c8260fb9d30972c56c4b44fc5c4849ab18f677c72e.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11887856

>>11859067

>> No.11888517

>>11859713
how would this look in 3d?

>> No.11888821

How do I make Taylor Swift my wife?

>> No.11888841

>>11888821
How do I make taylor swift your wife.