all 42 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 234 points 5 months ago (6 children)

Seems to me like it's demonstrating the projection of a complex three dimensional shape which produces a simple pattern on a two dimensional plane.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    thatsthejoke.jpg

    But what's the time equivalent flashlight?!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 5 months ago*

    Manifolds such as these are actually defined by the maps used from a linear space. Two manifolds (i.e. two sets of maps) are considered the same (isomorphic) if the maps of one set can be "morphed" into the other and vice versa.

    The flashlight demonstrates how the manifold's map projects into the linear space. See stereographic projection.

    That's kind of part of a larger point actually: There is no 3d vector space in reality. It's a made up construct used to make sense of the world around us.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 152 points 5 months ago* (6 children)

    No. He shows how non euclidean (spherical) space translates to euclidean (flat) space. Description is bullshit.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago

    There is the cool idea of showing how different dimensions, in our situation where fully visualizing a fourth dimension is fundamentally impossible, could potentially look. Like, yes this is obviously not going to show us a fourth dimension but looking at how a 2D plane can actually be a 3D space if you have the capacity to see it is kinda neat. It’s as close as most people are going to get to visualizing a fourth dimension.

    You’re so focused on how this isn’t a literal representation of something fundamentally impossible to represent that you forgot to exercise your imagination even a little bit.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (4 children)

    What if I were to tell you you're supposed to extrapolate the concept instead of taking it absolutely literally?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 42 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    There's nothing to extrapolate here. The description is BS. There's no such thing as 'linear plane' there's a flat plane and curved plane (with positive and negative curvatures). There's a thing called linear algebra but it's not the same. Also planes are 2 dimensional spaces. When you have more dimensions name 'plane' doesn't apply. If you extrapolate BS you'll get even more BS

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Isn't the description dumbed down to fit thosoe of us with less than mathematician level brains? :-)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

    The description hurts my brain, it doesn't make any sense to me at all, it just seems to be filled with irrelevant words that sound sciency to someone who doesn't know what they mean. Like a bad sci fi script.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 88 points 5 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 44 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Can I buy this chandelier?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 37 points 5 months ago

    Oh yes, a 4D print casting a 3D shadow

  • source
  • [–] 33 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Isn't "3rd dimensional plane" an oxymoron?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 38 points 5 months ago

    I mean typically people refer to planes as hyperplanes once you go past 3D, but I’ve definitely heard them just called “planes” too

    Hyperplanes are just a generalization of planes to higher dimensions. Often you hear the term when working with vectors because, like in 3D, you can define an n-dimensional hyperplane by a surface normal vector and a point. All lines perpendicular (orthogonal) to that normal vector which pass through the point form the plane.

    It’s a useful concept and since we already have a word for that kind of structure in 3D space we just use the same term for it in other dimensions

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago

    Hmmm. I don’t think so but I do think it is incorrectly used here. To me, the 3rd dimensional plane would just be the z axis. If you were talking about the entire 3D shape which they are here, I would just say 3rd dimension.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 22 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    So, Earth is actually flat

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    This is like me laying naked on my back with an erection and saying the shadow cast by the sun is a complex timekeeping device.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 16 points 5 months ago
    [–] 15 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Neat. How does this help me violate causality or skip over to a different planet? "Scientists discover we are trapped in an even deeper infinite fractal of hell from which there is no escape."

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Um, hypothetically speaking, for a ah friend, if I wanted to STOP slipping into the ever deepening abyss of further levels of hell, how might I, oh I mean my friend, accomplish this?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 5 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago

    Next an Tesseract dice

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago

    yapping alert

  • source
  • [+] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)
    [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    got xmas ornaments do that 🪩

  • source