What am I in for?

The forward in revised editions contains a lengthy discussion about the geometry and objections raised about it. It is claimed that concepts are mathematically sound, but it ignores several cases that invalidate the entire narrative.

Hrmm... Never read that forward... I don't see how anything in the story could possibly be meant to accurately represent any physical thing in the real world though - just, at best, somewhat accurately portraying certain social tendencies.

I've never heard of anyone claiming two dimensional sapient dimensional lifeforms could actually exist, nor of anyone of non-/x/-kin talking about 4th dimensional life forms. They are all just interesting mental concepts, and like so many other concepts math can bring you to, aren't actually in the realm of possibility.

I suppose there was that one TNG episode that begged us to take it seriously, but still, strictly sci-fi.

Is this the one where the girls are lines and it talks about how they can sneak around if they approach you directly from the end? I vaguely recall years ago reading that to a girl and it really triggered her into a feminist rant about how awful and misogynistic that is.

I read it in junior high. I could only imagine a 4D object moving through 3d space, but I went to math camp a couple years later and did some linear algebra. Once I had the mathematical tools to represent 4D, it made more sense.

My point is that their depiction of 2d existing in 3d and the extension of 3d existing in 4d is wrong. I don't care about the other social commentary.

It's not possible for a higher dimensional object to exist in a lower dimensional space. If you think this is true, you don't understand linear algebra at all. It is possible for a lesser dimensional object to exist in higher dimensional space.

How is the book inaccurate?

im just gonna drop this here
miegakure.com/

And titless bimbos.

The Lorentz algebra on 2+1 spacetime dimensions is totally different than on 3+1, so any familiarity of matter and forces on the flatland is a lie told to you to hide the truth that you don't actually understand the space you live in well enough to comprehend others.

>tldr the book is wrong and authors aren't good at math

A rather simplistic and dated discussion of properties of inferred extra dimensions. Fun-ish.

Somebody was bothered by the sexist society depicted, and decided to do a sequel which also took into account the fact that, in the intervening time between the original and the sequel, Einstein happened. "Sphereland" lacks the charm of the original, but offers a decent set of analogies to "envision" curved 3-dimensional space.

Can you imagine infinity?

Scientism trying to use hologram theory to work geocentricity back into reality because they know they hit a wall in actual science outside of theoretical rambings and have been depending on science fiction for the last century.

Not really, and for the same reason one can't really imagine 4th dimensional objects - webm related.

Yes, and the Earth is flat, we know...

I don't see how hologram theory would get us any closer to geocentricity though. The idea that the third dimension is emergent from two doesn't make us any more significant.

Besides, I think they tested for that, and it failed:
holometer.fnal.gov/faq.html#experiment

To all the brainlets bringing up spacetime:
>Little, if anything, is gained by representing the fourth Euclidean dimension as time. In fact, this idea, so attractively developed by H. G. Wells in The Time Machine, has led such authors as John William Dunne (An Experiment with Time) into a serious misconception of the theory of Relativity. Minkowski's geometry of space-time is not Euclidean, and consequently has no connection with the present investigation.
—H. S. M. Coxeter, Regular Polytopes

Human imagination works by synthesis - so while you can imagine things that don't exist, you can't really imagine things for which you have no reference point.

Thus, infinity simply becomes "really fucking big", and four dimensional objects become, "makes my eyes go cross".

>Thus, infinity simply becomes "really fucking big"

I visualize it as a row of the number "1" scrolling past and it never ends. Not hard to imagine

"And it never ends"... You can conceptualize it, yes, but you can't really imagine it. I mean, it's hard enough to really imagine watching that stream your whole life - pretty much impossible to imagine watching it for eternity.

>You can conceptualize it, yes, but you can't really imagine it.

I'm not sure I see the difference.

To put it in christfag terms, it's the difference between believing in God, and knowing God, and why claiming the former is fine and dandy, but claiming the latter is a sin, for he is infinite, and thus unknowable.

Conceptualize means you can form the notion or idea, but to truly imagine something, means you can accurately simulate the experience in your mind. You can't do that with either of these things, as that mental experience is limited to recombination and synthesis of other real life experiences and imagery. "Lots of 1's", isn't really any better than, "really fucking big".

Dodecahedron:

Pentagram
*knock knock knock*
Pentagram
*knock knock knock*
Pentagram
*knock knock knock*

Pentagram: What is it Dodecahedron?

Dodecahedron:

Brazil Nut.

:Audience fucking dies laughing in all dimensions:

>Higher Comedy

It's a story about geometry that also has some social commentary about the period it was written in.

>"Lots of 1's", isn't really any better than, "really fucking big".

Kek, I guess but it seems easier to imagine that than an infinitely big object.

Well, generally folks imagine the universe in that case (however potentially incorrectly)... Or just blackness going out to infinity... Something that they've sorta experienced, but doesn't really capture the totality of it. Such are the limits of the human mind I suppose.

But it's not as if we canna know nuffin about nuffin. Concepts still work and can get you where ya need to go, even if it gets a bit dangerous when you start thinking of them as reality.

The entire scenario is impossible, but geometrically speaking, this I don't understand. Cannot one infinite plane cross with another two? Cannot lines on these planes thus intersect, even if all the lines on any given plane may not all interact with another?

see the principal when michio kaku states that the universe is expanding with the earth at it's center

and consider that "heliocentricism" is already flawed as the sun isn't the observable center of the universe. And upon every mention of the thousands of assumptions and fallacies required to make heliocentricism work, it's still wrong.

but alas athiests would rather tell you that there is a hologram reality rather than a god or intelligent being that created the supposed hologram, and it created itself in big bang which they hold so closely to,

ironically a theory formulated by a catholic priest.

The planes can't cross unless they exist in a higher space, or they'll all be parallel.

A 4d object can't exist in 3d because you wouldn't be able to define part of the object. A 4d object in linear algebra would require a vector space with a 4 compon ent basis, say i,j,k,q. A 3d vector space only has i,j,k. Again, a 3d vector can exist in a higher space, but q= 0

What in the actual fuck did I just watch?

The one you linked is not the heavily cast one -- that would be Flatland: The Movie. For me Flatland: The Film was much better, the other being unbearable to watch in comparison.

>"Flatland: The Movie" vs. "Flatland: The Film"
That's it... /tv/ is no longer allowed to name things.

I found "The Movie" to be adorable, and the sort of thing I'd be willing to toss at my kids - certainly gets the point across well enough, but I'll have to look up the "The Film".

Actually, you want a *really* good movie that makes the exact same point... Check out "The Point", with Ringo Starr and Dustin Hoffman:
youtube.com/watch?v=B2jxFrYR4VU

Pretty much the same story, even if it lacks the fourth dimensional mindfuck, and has a bit more of a zen focus. Kinda covers a wider range of wonder in addition to being lovingly hand crafted instead of CGI.

why did i watch 45 mimutes of this

it's actually deep in a surrealist way