Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#84 - Ruspanic (11/21/2012) [-]
More ******** : every shape within this thing is a perfect cube. Also there are 8 cubes.
User avatar #105 to #84 - pandation (11/21/2012) [-]
Do you know what a cube is? I don't think you do
User avatar #107 to #105 - GritaGris (11/21/2012) [-]
He's not wrong, there's just no way to represent it in three dimensions. Educate yourself before you talk
User avatar #108 to #107 - pandation (11/21/2012) [-]
Then there aren't 8 cubes if a 3 dimensional figure cannot be represented within its own dimension
User avatar #109 to #108 - GritaGris (11/21/2012) [-]
That's why this is a four-dimensional object. Oh look, science!
User avatar #110 to #109 - pandation (11/21/2012) [-]
And you just proved you also don't know what the 4th dimension is either... Thanks for playing.
User avatar #111 to #110 - GritaGris (11/21/2012) [-]
If you tell me the fourth dimension is time I'm going to weep for humanity
User avatar #112 to #111 - pandation (11/21/2012) [-]
Do people still believe that? I mean I guess it can be technically correct and a somewhat decent model to teach the concept by comparing apples to oranges by I didn't think it was still taught in that manner
User avatar #116 to #112 - GritaGris (11/21/2012) [-]
Whether or not the fourth dimension is time is irrelvent hre. This is just a hypothetical mathematical concept in a fourth spacial dimension, it has nothing do with physics.
#118 to #116 - pandation (11/21/2012) [-]
Ok buddy, let's just take this step by step. Is the red highlighted a shape? Is it a cube? Original comment is false.
#312 to #118 - Ruspanic (11/23/2012) [-]
Probably a bit late to reply here (I haven't had Internet for a day or so), but here's a 2-dimensional representation of what you're saying.

Would you believe me if I told you that the shape outlined in red was a perfect square?
This is actually a 2D model of a cube, viewed from the front. All sides of the cube are perfect squares, and there are 6 sides (even though you can only see 5 of them from this angle, and only one of those appears to be a square).

Same thing with the tesseract. What you have is a 2D picture of a 3D model of a 4D object.
Just as a 1D line segment has two 0D "sides" that are points, a 2D square has 4 1D sides that are line segments, a 3D cube has 6 2D sides that are squares, and a 4D tesseract has 8 3D sides that are cubes. And so on.

Of course the 4th spatial dimension is a hypothetical mathematical concept. It could exist in theory, but if it does we cannot observe it.
User avatar #313 to #312 - pandation (11/24/2012) [-]
After this entire conversation I did more research that I'd like to admit about the subject, mainly because I found it very interesting. I found out what a tesseract actually even is beyond my previous comprehension and basically found a textbook length explanation of what you condensed into a comment. I'll admit I did not know what I was talking about at the time and now am better educated for circumstances involving the subject in the future.
User avatar #128 to #118 - ruinsage (11/21/2012) [-]
it's called a linear transformation.

If you transform an object consisting of 8 cubes from a 4 dimensional vector space onto a 3 dimensional vector space, and then onto a 2 dimensional vector space, you get this.

The 4th dimension in physics might be time, but its not in mathematics
User avatar #129 to #128 - pandation (11/21/2012) [-]
****** blowing my mind here. What level of math is this covered in?
User avatar #139 to #129 - ruinsage (11/21/2012) [-]
college second semester
User avatar #148 to #139 - pandation (11/21/2012) [-]
what class?
User avatar #154 to #148 - ruinsage (11/21/2012) [-]
linear algebra
User avatar #162 to #154 - pandation (11/21/2012) [-]
makes sense, as a biochem major, all that was required for me was Calc 1-3
#123 to #118 - anon (11/21/2012) [-]
http : [url deleted]

http : [url deleted]

Wikipedia. Simple stuff.
#120 to #118 - Xepheros (11/21/2012) [-]
inb4 someone spews idiocy and refuses to realize that the image of a tesseract is the 2D representation of the 3D shadow of a 4D cube.
User avatar #121 to #120 - pandation (11/21/2012) [-]
Alright whatever, apparently I don't know what I'm talking about especially since people think THAT is a cube. Real cute people, real cute
#122 to #121 - Xepheros (11/21/2012) [-]
You obviously don't, since it's not a cube. Let me repeat that, the tesseract is the 2D representation of the 3D shadow of a 4D cube. The actual 3D shadow looks different, because humans cannot percieve 3D - and the 4D cube looks very different, because humans can't even imagine 4D since we live in 3D and our eyes watch in 2D.
User avatar #124 to #122 - pandation (11/21/2012) [-]
Alright so then there must be an explanation for the distortion of the "cubes" since the tesseract is a standard, conceptual figure of our perception as a 4d figure.
User avatar #173 to #124 - GritaGris (11/21/2012) [-]
Does that shadow of a three dimensional cube look like a cube?
 Friends (0)