• BlackLaZoR@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    99
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    21 days ago

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

    • Soup@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      19 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.

      • BlackLaZoR@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        27
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        20 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