• over_clox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    RGBXY

    You got a 5 dimensional system right there.

    Its not that hard, except for the people that don’t understand multiple dimensions…

    • PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S [he/him]@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      except for the people that don’t understand multiple dimensions…

      …which is most people, actually. So you’re kinda making the case against having a figure, because you would have to project your 5D object onto a 2D space, where both topology and graph theory simplify dramatically. Topological graph theory can tell us that there exist graphs with topologies that cannot be embedded into 2D or even 3D space without intersections, meaning you would have to make some sacrifices to draw these graphs within your framework.

      But that’s not even how it works. If you allow for intersections, you can always draw a graph on a piece of paper. Which they do.

      • over_clox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        RGBXY

        Red, Green, Blue, X, Y…

        And guess what, T as well, Time, 6 dimensions.

        Every gamer in the world is already processing in 6 dimensional visual memory space.

        • PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S [he/him]@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 month ago

          Every gamer in the world is already processing in 6 dimensional visual memory space.

          Nah, by your logic, they’re processing in much higher dimensions, one for each cone cell. But your brain processes these sensors into a two-dimensional spatial image that varies with time. (When a signal processing system performs this, we call it sensor fusion. And in fact, machine learning is a huge part of sensor fusion.) But even then, gamers aren’t just responding to the visual stimuli, but they’re tracking the abstractions of the game, such as players, enemies, terrain, etc. And then the physics engine inside a modern game typically implements either 2D or 3D space, plus time. And then the configuration space of all the objects a gamer needs to track adds dimensions.

          But these high-dimensional objects…they really have structure that enables us to split them into groups of 1, 2, or 3. That’s not necessarily a helpful move for high-dimensional spaces in general.

          Like I’m not saying that you literally never can or should visualize high-dimensional objects, e.g. in Hilbert spaces a lot of plane and 3D geometry intuition survives, but some situations are just not amenable to visual learning. (Conversely, of course, some situations require visual learning. But it’s important to be able to use all learning styles to some extent.)

          • over_clox@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 month ago

            A dimension is a measurement, by basic definition.

            Therefore, all dimensions are dimensions.

            Wait, did I just make an equality?

            Edit: Fuckit, I just realized that Fahrenheit and Celsius are both the same dimension, just with a different scalar and constant offset. Not much different with Kelvin…

            • PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S [he/him]@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 month ago

              A dimension is a measurement, by basic definition.

              Nope. It’s a historical accident (and mistake IMO) that (mathematical) dimension and physical dimension have the same word “dimension”.

              For example, in dynamical systems, we often work with so-called non-dimensionalized systems, i.e. we multiply the equations by the reciprocal of the physical dimension and end up with a system of unitless equations. This system may then be a N-dimensional system of unitless equations, i.e. you have N scalar equations.

              Edit: Fuckit, I just realized that Fahrenheit and Celsius are both the same dimension, just with a different scalar and constant offset. Not much different with Kelvin…

              Basically correct. Fahrenheit, Celsius, and Kelvin are all different units of the same dimensioned quantity, namely temperature.