2D surfaces in the third dimension?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter MBakke
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    2d Dimension Surfaces
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the classification of surfaces with zero thickness in the third dimension, specifically questioning whether a flat surface like a monitor should be considered two-dimensional or three-dimensional. Participants argue that while the surface occupies a location in three-dimensional space, it can still be described using only two coordinates, thus maintaining its two-dimensional classification. The conversation highlights the mathematical nature of dimensions, emphasizing that objects can be perceived in varying dimensions based on context and necessity.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic geometric concepts, including dimensions.
  • Familiarity with coordinate systems and how they describe objects in space.
  • Knowledge of mathematical definitions of dimensions.
  • Awareness of philosophical perspectives on dimensions in physics.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the mathematical definition of dimensions in geometry.
  • Explore the implications of dimensionality in physics, particularly in theories involving higher dimensions.
  • Learn about coordinate systems and their applications in describing objects in space.
  • Investigate philosophical discussions on the nature of reality and dimensions.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, physicists, philosophy students, and anyone interested in the conceptual understanding of dimensions and their implications in both theoretical and practical contexts.

MBakke
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hello,

I just need to know whether or not surfaces with zero size in the third dimension, 6x8x0, is considered two-dimensional.

The surface is there all the time. It has a location in the third dimension, so wouldn't it be a 3D object? I am not sure whether I should call a flat surface (as if a monitor could possibly be completely flat) 2D or not.

The material it is the surface of (this surface doesn't have any matter, of course) is 4D.

If I ask someone to point at a 2D surface, and they point at a monitor or any other flat surface (they are not exactly smart, they don't think a round ball would be accepted because it's not flat. Nothing is really flat, you'd need to cut out a really small point), do I tell them:

"Correct, the surface has no size in the third dimension" or do I tell them "Incorrect, it has a location in the third dimension"?

Can a 2D object have a location in the third dimension?

MBakke
 
Physics news on Phys.org
A good way to think of it is to consider how many coordinates you need to describe it. The surface it self has a location in all three dimensions, so you need three coordinates to describe it. However, if you consider a point on the surface you only need two coordinates (that is two dimensions) to describe it. Of course the catch is that by requiring the point to be on the surface you are in effect giving the third coordinate.
 
IMO a dimension is a mathematical concept, not a concrete reality.

Objects in our world have as many dimensions as one feels necessary to describe their properties and behaviours.
A table is two dimensional when it suits us to say it is. When we want to get it through a doorway, suddenly it's three dimensional.

Some lunatics think it has as many as eleven. Not my problem.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K