| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
11-D art
S888Wheel a écrit :
Yep. But if you want an explination as to how, start with this question. Can one visualize a three dimensional space with a two dimensional representation? S888Wheel love to play the RAO's Sphinx. He thinks that this makes him look intelligent. When you will have finished to answer to all his questions you will have forgotten the subject of the thread... Unfortunatly S888Wheel has lost the Ariadne's thread to go back in the real world and now he is the wrecked guy of the 11th dimension. :-) |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
11-D art
S888Wheel wrote: From: johnebravo836 Date: 7/12/2004 7:14 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: From: johnebravo836 Date: 7/9/2004 1:40 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: From: Lionel ahc Date: 7/7/2004 10:46 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel a écrit : From: Lionel il Date: 7/6/2004 1:46 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: MINe 109 wrote: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/dimensions.html "Not unless some four-dimensional life-form pulls us from our three-dimensional Spaceland and gives us a view of the world from its perspective." "S888Wheel" is the messiah ? ;-) No, you are just an idiot. It is easy to visualize a simple 4D space for some of us. I suppose something as simple as that may make one look like a deity to a moron. No misunderstanding, you are a joke, loser, not a deity. ;-) Who said anything about a misunderstanding? You can't even get that right. If you don't think I am a deity why do you continue to worship me? If you are not a moron why is something as simple as the visualization of a simple 4D space seem so perplexing to you? Unless that fourth dimension is a temporal one, "visualizing" is surely the wrong word to use here. No. Not at all. Wow. Well, I guess I stand corrected, then . . . Yep. But if you want an explination as to how, start with this question. Can one visualize a three dimensional space with a two dimensional representation? Visualize? No -- you can *represent* or *describe* a 3-D space with a *collection* of 2-D images, but if by "visualize" you mean something like "form a mental image of one in your head", it would be impossible to do that with a single 2-D image. |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
11-D art
From: johnebravo836
Date: 7/15/2004 7:18 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: From: johnebravo836 Date: 7/12/2004 7:14 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: From: johnebravo836 Date: 7/9/2004 1:40 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: From: Lionel ahc Date: 7/7/2004 10:46 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel a écrit : From: Lionel il Date: 7/6/2004 1:46 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: MINe 109 wrote: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/dimensions.html "Not unless some four-dimensional life-form pulls us from our three-dimensional Spaceland and gives us a view of the world from its perspective." "S888Wheel" is the messiah ? ;-) No, you are just an idiot. It is easy to visualize a simple 4D space for some of us. I suppose something as simple as that may make one look like a deity to a moron. No misunderstanding, you are a joke, loser, not a deity. ;-) Who said anything about a misunderstanding? You can't even get that right. If you don't think I am a deity why do you continue to worship me? If you are not a moron why is something as simple as the visualization of a simple 4D space seem so perplexing to you? Unless that fourth dimension is a temporal one, "visualizing" is surely the wrong word to use here. No. Not at all. Wow. Well, I guess I stand corrected, then . . . Yep. But if you want an explination as to how, start with this question. Can one visualize a three dimensional space with a two dimensional representation? Visualize? No -- you can *represent* or *describe* a 3-D space with a *collection* of 2-D images, but if by "visualize" you mean something like "form a mental image of one in your head", it would be impossible to do that with a single 2-D image. I think you are quite mistaken here. This is the on line definition. Main Entry: vi·su·al·ize Pronunciation: 'vi-zh&-w&-"lIz, 'vi-zh&-"lIz, 'vizh-w&-"lIz Function: verb Inflected Form(s): -ized; -iz·ing Date: 1863 transitive senses : to make visible: as a : to see or form a mental image of : So a drawing of a cube or a photo of a landscape does not make visable or allow you to form a mental image of a three dimensional space or object? It does for me. |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
11-D art
S888Wheel wrote: From: johnebravo836 Date: 7/15/2004 7:18 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: [snip] Yep. But if you want an explination as to how, start with this question. Can one visualize a three dimensional space with a two dimensional representation? Visualize? No -- you can *represent* or *describe* a 3-D space with a *collection* of 2-D images, but if by "visualize" you mean something like "form a mental image of one in your head", it would be impossible to do that with a single 2-D image. I think you are quite mistaken here. This is the on line definition. Main Entry: vi·su·al·ize Pronunciation: 'vi-zh&-w&-"lIz, 'vi-zh&-"lIz, 'vizh-w&-"lIz Function: verb Inflected Form(s): -ized; -iz·ing Date: 1863 transitive senses : to make visible: as a : to see or form a mental image of : So a drawing of a cube or a photo of a landscape does not make visable or allow you to form a mental image of a three dimensional space or object? It does for me. Please note that you just changed the question -- you're now saying that one can use a 2-D picture as a *prompt*, and from that prompt, extrapolate and "visualize" (or form a mental image, if you will) a 3-D space in one's imagination. The point, however, is that the 2-D representation itself does not, in fact, depict a 3-D space; to see that, all you have to do is notice that the 2-D representation is, as it stands by itself, ambiguous. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
11-D art
From: johnebravo836
Date: 7/15/2004 8:16 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: From: johnebravo836 Date: 7/15/2004 7:18 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: [snip] Yep. But if you want an explination as to how, start with this question. Can one visualize a three dimensional space with a two dimensional representation? Visualize? No -- you can *represent* or *describe* a 3-D space with a *collection* of 2-D images, but if by "visualize" you mean something like "form a mental image of one in your head", it would be impossible to do that with a single 2-D image. I think you are quite mistaken here. This is the on line definition. Main Entry: vi·su·al·ize Pronunciation: 'vi-zh&-w&-"lIz, 'vi-zh&-"lIz, 'vizh-w&-"lIz Function: verb Inflected Form(s): -ized; -iz·ing Date: 1863 transitive senses : to make visible: as a : to see or form a mental image of : So a drawing of a cube or a photo of a landscape does not make visable or allow you to form a mental image of a three dimensional space or object? It does for me. Please note that you just changed the question -- No I didn't. you're now saying that one can use a 2-D picture as a *prompt*, and from that prompt, extrapolate and "visualize" (or form a mental image, if you will) a 3-D space in one's imagination. I didn't say prompt. I offered two dictionary definitions to the word visualization 1.: to make visible: as a 2.: to see or form a mental image of : I then asked if a drawing of a cube or a photo of a landsape allows you to visyualize a three dimensional space or object by either of those definitions. It does for me by *both* definitions. The point, however, is that the 2-D representation itself does not, in fact, depict a 3-D space; Actually it does in the examples I cited. Do we have to look up *depict*? Do we need to keep coming up with new words? I said it is possible to visualize a simple four dimensional space in less than four dimesions. I tried to illustrate this by starting with three dimensional spaces that are easily seen on a two dimensional canvas. to see that, all you have to do is notice that the 2-D representation is, as it stands by itself, ambiguous. I suppose a drawing of a cube or a photo of a landscape may be ambiguous for some people. Not to all people. I have no trouble with it. |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
11-D art
S888Wheel wrote: From: johnebravo836 Date: 7/15/2004 8:16 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: From: johnebravo836 Date: 7/15/2004 7:18 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: [snip] Yep. But if you want an explination as to how, start with this question. Can one visualize a three dimensional space with a two dimensional representation? Visualize? No -- you can *represent* or *describe* a 3-D space with a *collection* of 2-D images, but if by "visualize" you mean something like "form a mental image of one in your head", it would be impossible to do that with a single 2-D image. I think you are quite mistaken here. This is the on line definition. Main Entry: vi·su·al·ize Pronunciation: 'vi-zh&-w&-"lIz, 'vi-zh&-"lIz, 'vizh-w&-"lIz Function: verb Inflected Form(s): -ized; -iz·ing Date: 1863 transitive senses : to make visible: as a : to see or form a mental image of : So a drawing of a cube or a photo of a landscape does not make visable or allow you to form a mental image of a three dimensional space or object? It does for me. Please note that you just changed the question -- No I didn't. you're now saying that one can use a 2-D picture as a *prompt*, and from that prompt, extrapolate and "visualize" (or form a mental image, if you will) a 3-D space in one's imagination. I didn't say prompt. I offered two dictionary definitions to the word visualization 1.: to make visible: as a 2.: to see or form a mental image of : I then asked if a drawing of a cube or a photo of a landsape allows you to visyualize a three dimensional space or object by either of those definitions. It does for me by *both* definitions. Has it occurred to you that the reason why one is able to look at a 2-D image and extrapolate from that to mentally "visualize" a 3-D space is because you have actually *viewed* real 3-D spaces every day of your life? Please explain, then, when (and, just as importantly, how) you have actually *viewed* any 4-D spaces, which would then make it possible for you to look at a single 3-D representation and extrapolate from that to "visualize" a 4-D space. The point, however, is that the 2-D representation itself does not, in fact, depict a 3-D space; Actually it does in the examples I cited. Do we have to look up *depict*? Do we need to keep coming up with new words? I said it is possible to visualize a simple four dimensional space in less than four dimesions. Do you see how visualizing a 4-D space in less than 4 dimensions is rather different from looking at a 2-D image and, from that, mentally visualizing a 3-D space? I tried to illustrate this by starting with three dimensional spaces that are easily seen on a two dimensional canvas. to see that, all you have to do is notice that the 2-D representation is, as it stands by itself, ambiguous. I suppose a drawing of a cube or a photo of a landscape may be ambiguous for some people. Not to all people. I have no trouble with it. Have you ever noticed that when you look at, for example, a 2-D depiction of a cube, that which face of the cube is "closer" to you as the viewer is ambiguous? Or are you suggesting that it's not ambiguous? |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
11-D art
From: johnebravo836
Date: 7/15/2004 9:01 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: From: johnebravo836 Date: 7/15/2004 8:16 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: From: johnebravo836 Date: 7/15/2004 7:18 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: [snip] Yep. But if you want an explination as to how, start with this question. Can one visualize a three dimensional space with a two dimensional representation? Visualize? No -- you can *represent* or *describe* a 3-D space with a *collection* of 2-D images, but if by "visualize" you mean something like "form a mental image of one in your head", it would be impossible to do that with a single 2-D image. I think you are quite mistaken here. This is the on line definition. Main Entry: vi·su·al·ize Pronunciation: 'vi-zh&-w&-"lIz, 'vi-zh&-"lIz, 'vizh-w&-"lIz Function: verb Inflected Form(s): -ized; -iz·ing Date: 1863 transitive senses : to make visible: as a : to see or form a mental image of : So a drawing of a cube or a photo of a landscape does not make visable or allow you to form a mental image of a three dimensional space or object? It does for me. Please note that you just changed the question -- No I didn't. you're now saying that one can use a 2-D picture as a *prompt*, and from that prompt, extrapolate and "visualize" (or form a mental image, if you will) a 3-D space in one's imagination. I didn't say prompt. I offered two dictionary definitions to the word visualization 1.: to make visible: as a 2.: to see or form a mental image of : I then asked if a drawing of a cube or a photo of a landsape allows you to visyualize a three dimensional space or object by either of those definitions. It does for me by *both* definitions. Has it occurred to you that the reason why one is able to look at a 2-D image and extrapolate from that to mentally "visualize" a 3-D space is because you have actually *viewed* real 3-D spaces every day of your life? We really haven't discussed *why* people can visualize 3D spaces and objects when they are represented in 2D The point was to show that one does not *need* 3 dimensions to represent or visualize 3 dimensions. Further one can visualize three dimensional spaces and objects from viewing them in 2D without ever having seen that particular space or object. One can even visualize 3D spaces and objects via 2D renderings that cannot even possibly exist in the real world. The mind's eye is not limited to actual literal experience. Please explain, then, when (and, just as importantly, how) you have actually *viewed* any 4-D spaces, which would then make it possible for you to look at a single 3-D representation and extrapolate from that to "visualize" a 4-D space. I have never said I have actually "viewed" any 4D spaces. I said I have visualized them. And I havedrawn models of them. If you can understand that one can visualize a 3D space or object with just two dimensions to work with it shouldn't be that big a lead to figure out how one can do the same for simple four dimensional spaces with just three dimensions to work with. Heck, you can do it with two dimensions. The point, however, is that the 2-D representation itself does not, in fact, depict a 3-D space; Actually it does in the examples I cited. Do we have to look up *depict*? Do we need to keep coming up with new words? I said it is possible to visualize a simple four dimensional space in less than four dimesions. Do you see how visualizing a 4-D space in less than 4 dimensions is rather different from looking at a 2-D image and, from that, mentally visualizing a 3-D space? It is a little bit more of a brain tease at first but it isn't essentially different at all. I tried to illustrate this by starting with three dimensional spaces that are easily seen on a two dimensional canvas. to see that, all you have to do is notice that the 2-D representation is, as it stands by itself, ambiguous. I suppose a drawing of a cube or a photo of a landscape may be ambiguous for some people. Not to all people. I have no trouble with it. Have you ever noticed that when you look at, for example, a 2-D depiction of a cube, that which face of the cube is "closer" to you as the viewer is ambiguous? Or are you suggesting that it's not ambiguous? You are assuming a transparent cube no? I wasn't. But with a rendering of a transparent cube you have a 3 dimensional visualization wrought in 2 dimensions. You can visualize a cube with one face forward or you can visualize a cube with the opposite face forward or you can visualize one square, two triangles and four rectangles. That is up to your mind's eye. That is visualization. |
Hybrid Mode
