• CannonFodder@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    233
    ·
    1 month ago

    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.

  • BlackLaZoR@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    153
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

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

      • BlackLaZoR@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        47
        ·
        30 days ago

        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

    • Soup@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      29 days 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.

    • AnarchoEngineer@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      1 month 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

    • traxex@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 month 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.

  • 58008@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    1 month ago

    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.

  • timeghost@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 month ago

    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.”

    • OpenStars@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 month ago

      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?