teach yourself how to see 4-dimensional objects

[lazarus corporation]

may be of interest to those with an esoteric interest in four-dimensional geometry:

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic ... dimensions

[emilystrange]

ow. my head. it's sunday morning!

[mh]

Have these people never read HP Lovecraft? This can't end well...

[lazarus corporation]

I believe that the geometry involved is still Euclidian, albeit extended into a fourth dimension, rather than non-Euclidean geometry. As such a San roll is not required (Keeper's ruling).

Please see here for effects of non-Euclidean geometry.

[eotunun]

[/fun]
There still may be a few out there to whom this here is news.. Sadly, our brains just can't compile.
[fun]
Back to Cthuloo.

[Obviousman]

I can't even see bloody 3D!

[Big Si]

I can't even see bloody 3D!

You've never played Elite, General?

[Izzy HaveMercy]

I can't even see bloody 3D!

You beat me to it!

We should start a self-help group.

For the other 3D-weirdo's of course, we're doing just fine!

IZ.

[Obviousman]

Got that right, we should, IZ

@Si: Not even aware of that, but that looks like I might just manage that, it's just actual 3D (like balls flung in your direction) that really don't work

[stufarq]

Still downloading the films so I haven't watched them yet but I suspect that the real problem with visualising 4D space is that no-one explains what the extra dimension actually is. And even if they did, it wouldn't make a lot of sense.

Which leads to the other question: what's the point? Yes, I know it's all to do with quantum mechanics and therefore is of immense interest to quantum physicists and astrophysicists but what about real people? Why try and visualise something that's never going to be of any use to you whatsoever?

It's like a lot of things you get taught in school - particularly maths and science - which are really only any use if you go on to study them at university level, which would therefore be the sensible time to teach them in the first place. Take specialised nonsense like calculus out of schools and only teach it to those who will ever find a use for it, thus allowing everyone else to learn other things that they will either find useful or interesting.

[robertzombie]

I've seen it, it's s**t

[Big Si]

Got that right, we should, IZ

@Si: Not even aware of that, but that looks like I might just manage that, it's just actual 3D (like balls flung in your direction) that really don't work

It were a cult Video Game back in the day!

[Dark]

Which leads to the other question: what's the point? Yes, I know it's all to do with quantum mechanics and therefore is of immense interest to quantum physicists and astrophysicists but what about real people? Why try and visualise something that's never going to be of any use to you whatsoever?

No idea. Ask a theist.

It's like a lot of things you get taught in school - particularly maths and science - which are really only any use if you go on to study them at university level, which would therefore be the sensible time to teach them in the first place. Take specialised nonsense like calculus out of schools and only teach it to those who will ever find a use for it, thus allowing everyone else to learn other things that they will either find useful or interesting.

Uhh.. I'm not going to agree here (surprise surprise). Why was I taught History? Or Geography? I don't use skills from any of the 6 or 7 years of that in "real life", whereas I use calculus and mechanics fairly often. Even when I don't "have" to, I use the knowledge I have of how it works to explain various bits of the world to myself. Do I need to know what electrical impedance is? No, but it certainly explained why my laptop fed back during a gig, rather than my thinking "Have I broken something?"

I find Physics a lot more interesting now we're actually learning how real life works, as opposed to spending 10 years making little lightbulbs light up and being told that electricity is "turned into light".

[robertzombie]

making little lightbulbs light up

That's the best bit!

[Dark]

Until you leave GCSE education and it gets interesting.

Seriously, I used to hate Physics.. s**t teacher, dry and boring stuff.. then I did it for A-Level because I wanted to do Computer Science at uni and thought it'd be a good idea.. then when we started learning about what atoms are made of, and how everything is just energy and space, I dropped the idea of CompSci and went deeper into Physics, and I haven't looked back.

[markfiend]

Only 4 dimensions? I thought string "theory" was positing 10 or 11 of the buggers these days.

[stufarq]

Why was I taught History? Or Geography?

Not really a fair comparison. I didn't say not to teach physics or maths in school but not to teach overspecialised areas that are only used by a few people. Most of use the basics of history and geography all the time, just as we use the basics of maths and physics. Very few of us use calculus. And one important difference is that you can choiose whether to take history, geography or physics beyond the basic level but everyone has to do maths (at least in the UK) and there's no choice in whether or not you learn calculus.

Anyway, having now watched the films (well, as much as I could take), I submit that it's mostly pretentious crap. The steroscopic projections are nonsense because they only make sense if you're already familiar with the shapes being projected: they can't help you understand them if you don't already understand them, not least because they don't look anything like the original shapes! And they haven't created any 4D shapes - they've created 2D ones.

And are these films meant to make the subject seem more interesting? Cos they really don't. The narrator clearly thinks he's making it fun but he's so very, very wrong.

[emilystrange]

you were taught history because pretty much anything that is going to happen has already happened in some form or another. the idea is to learn from it... geography sort of runs the other way, you can predict what's going to happen to rocks and coastlines etc. the demographic type geography is a bit more tricky to be accurate though, i spose

[markfiend]

IMO calculus is basic mathematics. What do you want, addition and subtraction, multiplication and division, and nothing else?

Maths is foundational to so much other stuff, especially in the sciences, that it would be criminal not to teach it.

And anyway, whatever happened to "knowledge for its own sake"?

[stufarq]

IMO calculus is basic mathematics. What do you want, addition and subtraction, multiplication and division, and nothing else?

That's arithmetic. Basic maths also includes algebra and geometry (not 4D!). I'd argue that calculus and trigonometry are advanced maths, not basic. Otherwise they'd be taught much earlier.

Maths is foundational to so much other stuff, especially in the sciences, that it would be criminal not to teach it.

I already answered that point. To reiterate, I never said that maths shouldn't be taught, only that calculus (and, for that matter, trig) shouldn't be taught in schools but should be taught in higher education to those who will actually find a practical use for them (in science, technology or pure mathematics) or simply want to learn them.

And anyway, whatever happened to "knowledge for its own sake"?

Agreed but, again, I already made the point about choice. For instance, keeping to the maths-related theme, I have a basic (and I mean basic) interest in astrophysics but I wouldn't for a moment advocate it being taught in schools.

[markfiend]

Calculus and trigonometry are basic concepts of the subject; by your analysis I finished "basic maths" at age 13. We had some calculus and trig on 'O'-level maths when I sat it (a year early, admittedly).

OK, I see your point, maybe maths should be optional, not compulsory until 16, but that isn't an argument in favour of gutting the subject.

[emilystrange]

gah no, maths should NOT be optional. you need those logic and problem solving skills in everything that you do. maths permeates everything, you just don't realise it.

[markfiend]

Well, to be perfectly honest I don't think maths should be optional, I was trying to be conciliatory to stufarq.

I'm trying to remember what was in 'O'-level and what in 'A'-level back in my day. Simple derivatives was definitely 'O'-level, I think integration was left until 'A'-level. Trigonometry was definitely started in 'O'. Complex numbers were in 'A' I think.

I can't remember...

[emilystrange]

trig was when i did it. calculus was dropped down to O that year.

[markfiend]

I've no idea what's on the GCSE syllabus these days.

But yes. I think "oh but you'll never need it in real life" is a dreadful argument. It's like the sort of student who pipes up with "will this be on the exam?" every five fcuking minutes. No it's not on the exam but it's interesting so STFU.