Lisa Simpson's Presentation

47 views • Made by Negu 19 hours ago in MS_memer_group

34 Comments

attackthedpoint
0 ups, 19h, 2 replies
Tesseract.
Negu
0 ups, 18h, 1 reply
No the depiction is very limited and flawed
attackthedpoint
0 ups, 18h, 1 reply
It's a mathematical depiction. If a 4d tesseract passes through our plane it will appear as a 3d cube getting bigger and then shrinking again.
Negu
0 ups, 18h, 1 reply
assuming the 4d figure carries the physical characteristics of a 3d cube
attackthedpoint
0 ups, 18h, 1 reply
Yes, otherwise it wouldn't be a tesseract.
Negu
0 ups, 18h, 1 reply
then any 3d cube would be a tesseract because it can be presumed as moving through a 3d plane, the idea of it existing outside of this dimesion would grant it different characteristics, and that's why I say the idea is flawed
attackthedpoint
0 ups, 18h, 1 reply
But if a "squared" geometry exists in 1d, 2d, and 3d, can it not be implied to exist in 4d?
Negu
0 ups, 18h, 1 reply
it can, just doesn't interact the same as others, like how a square interacts differently than a cube
attackthedpoint
0 ups, 18h, 1 reply
Well of course, as all dimensions of geometry have at least some variation in their laws.
Negu
0 ups, 18h, 1 reply
okay then, you just proved my point
attackthedpoint
0 ups, 18h
I had assumed you meant that a 4d cube would not appear as a standard 3d cube if it passed through our dimension.
Negu
0 ups, 18h, 1 reply
no I'm saying it wouldn't have the same properties as one
attackthedpoint
0 ups, 18h, 1 reply
Well of course. I was simply saying it is like a cube passing through a 2d plane.
Negu
0 ups, 18h, 1 reply
... that's what I said ...
attackthedpoint
0 ups, 18h, 1 reply
And I agree with you.
Negu
0 ups, 18h, 1 reply
k then
attackthedpoint
0 ups, 18h, 1 reply
Fun discussion. Glad to see other smart people here.
Negu
0 ups, 18h
:thumbs up:
unexplainable
0 ups, 19h, 2 replies
But isn't everything on our screens 2d
Negu
0 ups, 19h, 1 reply
no, the projection of the lights on our screen happens over a very small 3d space
unexplainable
0 ups, 18h, 1 reply
The light is projected as a 2d plane.
Negu
0 ups, 18h, 1 reply
that is what we see, you can also say the surface of a cube is 2d, but does that mean the cube is? No
unexplainable
0 ups, 18h, 1 reply
But on a screen there is nothing but a surface. There is do depth.
Negu
0 ups, 18h, 1 reply
and so is the surface of a cube
unexplainable
0 ups, 18h, 2 replies
The cube irl has depth, the cube on a screen doesn't. 

It doesn't matter what we see, this is a fact.
Negu
0 ups, 18h, 1 reply
so what we see doesn't matter? then the world is 2d according to you
unexplainable
0 ups, 18h
What our brains perceive doesn't change reality. 

We do not have telekinesis.
Negu
0 ups, 18h, 1 reply
I said a real cube, just a surface of it, a side so to say.

you said a cube on a screen is 2d. how about this. Is the distance between a projector and its projection 2d?
unexplainable
0 ups, 17h, 1 reply
Oh so you're saying that the lightwaves traveling makes the shape 3d? As if it were a hologram?
Negu
0 ups, 16h, 1 reply
yes, the idea that the light having to travel any distance gives the object or ---->screen<---- depth
unexplainable
0 ups, 16h
So it's basically a 3d trapezoid of light.
Negu
0 ups, 16h, 1 reply
yes, essentialy
unexplainable
0 ups, 10h, 1 reply
OK fine, you got me.

It is possible to display a 3D shape on a screen.
Negu
0 ups, 1h
not what I said, I said the screen itself is 3d, especially the distance between the micro pixels and the  screen

Show More Comments

Caption this Meme

Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator

IMAGE DESCRIPTION:

I find it interesting when I look at depictions of 4d figures, because realistically, it would be nearly impossible to show because it really would be an infinite number of 3d figures overlapping eachother nearly perfectly or occupying nearly the same space, but the difference of this space creates the existing of the 4d/3d enviroment