Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: OT hypercube (was: Con-other)

From:Eugene Oh <un.doing@...>
Date:Saturday, May 31, 2008, 14:57
On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 7:59 PM, Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...> wrote:

> On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 4:42 AM, Eugene Oh <un.doing@...> wrote: > > I think the harder thing is not so much imagining the shape on a macro > > scale, but trying to piece together in your brain how to map "edges" of > > cubes to "faces" of tesseracts. > > Well, sure. But it's more the other way around... a cube has squares > connected by edges; a tesseract has cubes connected by squares. :) > > My sophomore year in college I had a roommate (another computer geek) > who had written a basic program to display a projection of an > N-dimensional cube for N up to 7 (the limit came from the BASIC > language's limit on array subscripts). You could turn perspective on > or off, and rotate the figure arbitrarily in its space before the > projection (hypercubes rotate around planes, instead of lines, and > there are six such planar "axes"). >
Planar rotation goes even further off my radar. I can't even begin to imagine it! I envy all you people who grasp mathematics so easily. :(
> > > I've always been fascinated by talk of dimensions, at least since primary > > school (when I was, say, 9) when my teacher offhandedly mentioned them. > > For me, and many of my peers, it was _A_Wrinkle_in_Time_, which > involved "tessering" as a means of transportation. With a completely > unsatisfying explanation, math/physicswise, but it did get me hooked > on the higher-dimension concept. >
A Wrinkle in Time! I liked that book. Until I grew older and realised that not only was the explanation unsatisfying, the descriptions of their arriving on 2D planets completely unbelievable. There is a process of pattern-repetition that has a name either very similar or identical to "tesseract", but I can't remember what...
> > > As I grew older I started getting skeptical about the > > whole concept of dimensions, because, my reasoning went, no matter how > small > > you make a point, it still occupies volume. > > Well, modern physics believes that the universe has many higher > physical dimensions; they're just very small. That is, our 4-d > spacetime is like a piece of paper in 3-d space - it's really > 3-dimensional, but it seems 2-dimensional because it's so thin. > >
In 3D terms, that might be like... having a cube that was actually a tesseract but no one realises it because from whichever angle human eyes can only see a cube? Is that it? Eugene


Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>
Michael Poxon <mike@...>