My Math Forum  

Go Back   My Math Forum > Math Forums > Math

Math General Math Forum - For general math related discussion and news

Thanks Tree2Thanks
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
September 11th, 2014, 11:39 PM   #11
Joined: May 2014
From: InOnePlaceorOther

Posts: 21
Thanks: 1

Yes, what I have been talking about is flat-space. Though, what I am wondering is if, given Euclidian space in ANY dimensionality (3d+), will the laws of the 2d shapes remain laws?(granted they are possibly only mental but they still have set laws.)

Is the above absolute truth or relative truth?

Lets see... I think that it may be true that the only way to alter this may be to change logic. In any case:

1. A triangle is 3 straight sides and three lines, not only three
2. A square is 4 straight lines and four points, not only three

Now what I am asking is: can you take something that is VISIBLY three sides and it is still somehow a square?

Or how about this: Can three sides ever ACTUALLY be four sides?

Originally Posted by v8archie
we've already seen that the maths about the real world represents the real world as an approximation
Math, to work, is NOT an approximation at large, at least from what I have seen. X= exactly something. Unless numbers don't work as a model of reality. And on the levels of reality that humanity uses math for, they do work.

You say definitions and axioms. What I am saying is: with a fixed definition and a fixed axiomatic system, does that set what comes next as absolute within that system or is it relative?

It is a bit like, "we set the rules of chess to say you cannot move a rook diagonally." So UNDER that rule, we can't move it. Though if someone is able to shift higher reality around so that illogic can exist, then the diagonal thing broke down potentially. What I am wondering is, can this happen with math? You mentioned the logic idea already, I was wondering if you had any other ideas which could lead to it? (Besides interchangeable definitions and axioms)


One more thing, about the supposed non-existence of 2d space. It is a concept that I am still thinking through, though this is what I have come up with so far:

In one aspect, 2d space wouldn't be assumed to exist if one of its dimensions, thus supposedly the whole thing, is 0. In another, however, 2d space does exist in our conscious observation. When you look at the screen you are looking at, if you are far enough away, it ONLY has 2 dimensions to your conscious observation at the time. In that sense you actually are witnessing 2 dimensions. Also if you look at the blueness of the sky, you only see a slice. The image before you is 2d and planar. If you have a cube (in real life) and are only seeing one face , how are you not perceiving something which is only 2d?

Last edited by Awake; September 11th, 2014 at 11:47 PM.
Awake is offline  

  My Math Forum > Math Forums > Math

absolute, counteract, dimensions, higher, math, quantum mechanics, quantum physics, rules, universe

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is the Universe Actually Made of Math? STV New Users 25 June 20th, 2014 02:12 AM
Visual Refs for higher level math? Vinh Math Books 0 October 12th, 2013 07:14 AM
Equation of a line in higher dimensions eddybob123 Algebra 4 June 17th, 2013 11:15 AM
how to find a higher power (math question, NOT religious!) empiricus Algebra 2 December 11th, 2010 09:29 AM

Copyright © 2019 My Math Forum. All rights reserved.