Re: OT hypercube (was: Con-other)

You're most of the way there, but you're still thinking (not surprisingly)
three dimensionally. There is no "inner hollow", anymore than there is a
square "inside"  a cube - that is just the way it is drawn in  perspective.
The tesseract is a solid four dimensional object (polychoron).



--------------------------------------------------
From: "Eugene Oh" <un.doing@...>
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 4:36 PM
To: <CONLANG@...>
Subject: Re: OT hypercube (was: Con-other)

> Oh dear me, to both Mark and Peter. But what remains constant, I presume,
> is
> that the inner hollow remains cube-shaped? I think I more or less get it
> now.
> /ObConlang: What are the names of geometric shapes and oddities in your
> conlangs? In Classical Arithide I used _nozais_ "four-sider" (nost "4" +
> daedos "side" + attrition) for square, optionally differentiated from cube
> as "flat-four-sider" vs. "standing-four-sider"; rectangles are called
> _mázais_ "long-siders" (massa "long"). It seems as though I shall need to
> invent a new term for "tesseract". How would you translate that?
>
> Eugene
>
> On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 7:20 PM, Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...> wrote:
>
>> Yup, the "cube inside a cube" picture of a tesseract is exactly
>> analogous to a perspective drawing of a cube as a square within a
>> square, with diagonals connecting the corners.  Only the two squares
>> are the proper shape; the other four sides, while square in reality,
>> are squashed into trapezoids in the drawing...
>>
>

Reply