NationStates Jolt Archive

oooh interesting stuff. want to read the book now :eek:
ps: the universe is cool!! :D

http://www.tenthdimension.com/flash2.php

sweet... more dimensions to conquer :) though the book looks cool, ain't science great?

sweet... more dimensions to conquer :) though the book looks cool, ain't science great?

science is great :)

i remember lectures on string theory scaring me.... this may not be accurate or whatever, but at least it makes sense :p

Wow. Now all I want is an 11th dimension.

that book is completely wrong, dont read it

oooh interesting stuff. want to read the book now :eek:
ps: the universe is cool!! :D

http://www.tenthdimension.com/flash2.php

Haven't you posted this before?

that book is completely wrong, dont read it
meh.

Haven't you posted this before?

nope, not me. but i have just learned (from glitz) that this has been posted here before apparently... i didn't know :(

dimension 10 to me sounds like God's workshop.

Thats a bit of a dodgy way of explaining it in my opinion. It's a little easier to understand, but it lost me once it started mentioning different infinities, that seems logically impossible.

Thanks now I undersand how they get beyond the fourth dimension. :) This reminds me I have to finisht the actual novel Flatland, which they pilfered the name from. :(

Thats a bit of a dodgy way of explaining it in my opinion. It's a little easier to understand, but it lost me once it started mentioning different infinities, that seems logically impossible.

maybe "infinity" is the wrong word to describe the thing?

maybe "infinity" is the wrong word to describe the thing?

Yeah, because it is not true infinity, it is only an infinate number of events from the big bang.

And they were saying that this may change if the big bang was different right?

Yeah, because it is not true infinity, it is only an infinate number of events from the big bang.

And they were saying that this may change if the big bang was different right?

maybe the word 'sum' would be better? the sum of all things.... then the 9th or 10th dimension (whichever one it was) would be the sum of all possible things...


... or something?

Thats a bit of a dodgy way of explaining it in my opinion. It's a little easier to understand, but it lost me once it started mentioning different infinities, that seems logically impossible.

There are different infinities. Two most common are aleph-null and aleph-one. Countably and uncountably infinite. Rays and lines as well, IIRC.


And I feel the same way about this as I did before. Poorly done.

that book is completely wrong, dont read it
So is the DaVinci Code, I still read that.
Yeah, because it is not true infinity, it is only an infinate number of events from the big bang.

And they were saying that this may change if the big bang was different right?

Yeah, calling those points infinities wasn't a great idea. Though there is an infinite number of timelines in them, but there's an infinite number of lines in the first 3 dimensions.

http://www.superstringtheory.com/


There are different infinities. Two most common are aleph-null and aleph-one. Countably and uncountably infinite. Rays and lines as well, IIRC.


:confused:

:confused:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph_number

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph_number

:eek:

oh Jesus Christ thats complex.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph_number

Eh, my brain hurts.

Seems kind of wishy-washy to me.

I can't even see a 4th dimension and everyone else is already on the 10th. I'm so far behind, this is calculus all over again.

I can't even see a 4th dimension and everyone else is already on the 10th. I'm so far behind, this is calculus all over again.

Don't worry, we can't see the 4th one either.

:eek:

oh Jesus Christ thats complex.

Ah, it's not that tough.

Ah, it's not that tough.

Maybe for you, I'm still having trouble with basic calculous at college, don't make me realise that it only goes 10 times more complex.

Maybe for you, I'm still having trouble with basic calculous at college, don't make me realise that it only goes 10 times more complex.

Aleph numbers aren't that complex. You really only need to know aleph-null and aleph-one.

i is far harder to truly wrap your mind around.

Aleph numbers aren't that complex. You really only need to know aleph-null and aleph-one.

i is far harder to truly wrap your mind around.

i is easy, cos it's imaginary. It doesn't have to make sense. Like unicorns, and fairies.

i is easy, cos it's imaginary. It doesn't have to make sense. Like unicorns, and fairies.

Yeah, but try and make sense out of it. I tried. And it hurt my head, mainly because I used i to turn the number line into the number plane, with i on the y-axis, and then began to think of a number space and tried to figure out what would be on the z-axis.

:eek:

oh Jesus Christ thats complex.

*agrees* :eek:

Maybe for you, I'm still having trouble with basic calculous at college, don't make me realise that it only goes 10 times more complex.

i had to change degrees because the maths in my economics degree was waaaaay above my possible understanding lol...

this ain't never gonna make sense unless its explained purely in words and images (like that website in my OP... yay!)

Seems kind of wishy-washy to me.

How so? :confused:

Wow. Now all I want is an 11th dimension.

I <3 M-theory. ;)

Yeah, but try and make sense out of it. I tried. And it hurt my head, mainly because I used i to turn the number line into the number plane, with i on the y-axis, and then began to think of a number space and tried to figure out what would be on the z-axis.

I hate you. You just ruined i for me.

I hate you. You just ruined i for me.

what is i? :confused:

what is i? :confused:

Radical negative one.

Thats a bit of a dodgy way of explaining it in my opinion. It's a little easier to understand, but it lost me once it started mentioning different infinities, that seems logically impossible.

There's countable and uncountable ones, to start. Integers v. Reals for example. ;)

There's countable and uncountable ones, to start. Integers v. Reals for example. ;)

Beat you to it.

i is easy, cos it's imaginary. It doesn't have to make sense. Like unicorns, and fairies.

All numbers are imaginary. Don't confuse a strict mathematical definition with common everyday usage.

Beat you to it.

*shrug* :fluffle:

what is i? :confused:
The sqare root of -1
All numbers are imaginary. Don't confuse a strict mathematical definition with common everyday usage.

i is imaginary in the sense that it is not contained in the set of the "real" numbers

The sqare root of -1


i is imaginary in the sense that it is not contained in the set of the "real" numbers

True. But real numbers are just as "imaginary."

True. But real numbers are just as "imaginary."

Yup. Maths is crazy like that.

True. But real numbers are just as "imaginary."

Not really. The real numbers are applicable to events and objects in our universe. The imaginary numbers are not.

Not really. The real numbers are applicable to events and objects in our universe. The imaginary numbers are not.

Never done any electrical engineering, eh?

Never done any electrical engineering, eh?

Requires use of i, no?

If you think i is weird, consider this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/c/2/c/c2cc760385a6ef275c61dc193e6ceaea.png

OR DID THAT JUST BLOW YOUR MIND?!?!?!?!?!LOLOL!!!111

Alright, I'm done.

If you think i is weird, consider this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/c/2/c/c2cc760385a6ef275c61dc193e6ceaea.png

OR DID THAT JUST BLOW YOUR MIND?!?!?!?!?!LOLOL!!!111

Alright, I'm done.

Yeah, but try and make sense out of it. I tried. And it hurt my head, mainly because I used i to turn the number line into the number plane, with i on the y-axis, and then began to think of a number space and tried to figure out what would be on the z-axis.

http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/b/b5/Exploding-head.gif

Yes. No.

i was one of those things you used without thinking about its origins. Like log, for example. And e. And natural logs.

http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/b/b5/Exploding-head.gif

Yes. No.

i was one of those things you used without thinking about its origins. Like log, for example. And e. And natural logs.

I understood log. Made sense to me. Then again, I had already worked with logarithmic graphs before I learned about log.

Never done any electrical engineering, eh?

Forgot all of it years ago. Odd, since I was probably the only person in the class who didn't manage to electrocute themselves making stuff.

At least I think it was electrical engineering. It was a pretty long time ago.

Yeah, but try and make sense out of it. I tried. And it hurt my head, mainly because I used i to turn the number line into the number plane, with i on the y-axis, and then began to think of a number space and tried to figure out what would be on the z-axis.

Oooohh, trippy.

oh god did i inadvertently start a thread on maths? :eek: :eek: :eek:

If this thread has turned into maps discussions, maybe they can help me, because I'm lost.