Comments | inverted_man: (без темы)

inverted_man

(Untitled)

Jul 13, 2006 12:56

http://www.tenthdimension.com/flash2.php

Click "Imagining the 10th Dimension".

*Always thought that a flatlander on a Mobius strip would become a mirror image of herself since she has essentially been lifted through the 3rd dimension and flipped over.

Comments 14

halfempty July 13 2006, 20:02:08 UTC

It says I'm not properly equipped.

...so tired of hearing that...

inverted_man July 13 2006, 20:08:31 UTC

Haha. Do you have the latest FLASH update installed? It's totally worth in imho.

(The comment has been removed)

inverted_man July 13 2006, 20:26:12 UTC

"a 10 dimensional object is simply a list of lists of lists of lists of lists of lists of lists of lists of lists of lists, nothing tricky bout it"

You have equated the map with the territory. Better to say "a description of a 10 dimensional object might be a list of lists of lists of lists of lists of lists of lists of lists of lists of lists".

(The comment has been removed)

inverted_man July 13 2006, 21:04:33 UTC

it's like saying the axiom of choice cant be true because it lets you cut up a sphere and reassemble it into 2 spheres of identical size, simply because it's impossible in reality.

Not to nitpick, but it just doesn't seem like that at all to me. In the first case, the objection is that you have equated the description of an object with the object itself (the description is X therefore the reality is X), thereby concluding that imagining 10-dimensional obects has nothing tricky about it because the tools used to describe the object have nothing tricky about them. The person objecting is really saying "the reality is different from the model".

In the second case, via enhanced Argumentum ad logicam, you are describing a situation wherein I would object to a description of an object behaving differently from the reality of the object - that is, comparing my first objection with one that sounds like "the model is different from the reality, therefore it cannot be true". They're actually mutually exclusive positions. I just ( ... )

Thread 9

jpfed July 13 2006, 22:56:24 UTC

Re: flatlander on a Mobius strip ( ... )

inverted_man July 14 2006, 15:05:29 UTC

If a physical object was crawling around on the Mobius strip- let's say a black and white Othello chip with its left side notched- then as it went around the strip its black face would alway be touching the strip. It starts at A, with its notch pointing to the left. When it gets to A', its notch is pointing to the right. When it completes the circuit and gets back to A, its notch is pointing the left again- its black face never left the strip.This is true, but it is not the terminal points of the trip that we're interested in. A lot of people will say of the Mobius strip that it has but "one side". This is what I'm focusing on. The journey is a peculiar one. We will not expect that the black face never left the strip, since that would involve the flatlander leaving Flatland. What I'm suggesting is that Flatland itself is doing the twisting. The flatlander is not the one doing weird stuff - it's what the Flatlander considers "space itself" that's becoming inverted ( ... )

jeff2001 July 14 2006, 01:22:40 UTC

That was great, thanks for sharing that. I sat rapt through the whole presentation.

whoa. lovelymissjess July 14 2006, 04:47:20 UTC

neato. can't wait to hear the songs.

Re: whoa. lovelymissjess July 14 2006, 04:47:39 UTC

oh, and where the shit did you find this?

Re: whoa. inverted_man July 14 2006, 14:28:01 UTC

I'm in a livejournal mathematics community and someone there posted it.

http://community.livejournal.com/mathematics/profile