High School Can an Object with N Dimensions Exist in N-1 Dimensions?

  • Thread starter Thread starter duyix
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    2d 3d Space
Click For Summary
An object with N dimensions cannot exist entirely in N-1 dimensions, as the fundamental properties of dimensions dictate that each dimension requires a corresponding degree of freedom. An infinitely flat object, such as a plane, is inherently two-dimensional and can be described by two non-parallel direction vectors, indicating it has only two degrees of freedom. Various mathematical results, including those related to embedding spaces, support the conclusion that higher-dimensional objects cannot be fully represented in lower-dimensional spaces. The discussion highlights the importance of understanding the definitions of dimensions and the implications of embedding in mathematical contexts. Overall, the consensus is that dimensionality is a strict constraint that cannot be bypassed.
duyix
Messages
1
Reaction score
1
I am concerned that this question may instead be a philosophical one although if it it mathematical, any insights would be very appreciated. The question is this; could an object of N dimensions exist entirely in N-1 dimensions? In other words, could an infinitely flat object have 3 degrees of freedom and also be able to fit entirely in 2D space? Thank you and please excuse any naivety
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
duyix said:
The question is this; could an object of N dimensions exist entirely in N-1 dimensions?
No, it's not possible.

duyix said:
In other words, could an infinitely flat object have 3 degrees of freedom and also be able to fit entirely in 2D space? [\quote]
If by "infinitely flat object" you mean "a plane" it's already a two-dimensional object that can be determined by two nonparallel direction vectors. I.e., two degrees of freedom.
 
Last edited:
There are different definitions of the term Dimension. One of them is that of number of data points needed to fully describe every point in the n-th dimensional object. And that number is precisely n.
There are results to the effect that ##\mathbb R^{n+k} ; k >0 ##; k a positive Integer, cannot be embedded in ##\mathbb R^n ##. There are similar results for n-spheres ## S^n ##. that cannot be embedded in ## \mathbb R^n ## or lower IIRC, the main result is that of Borsuk -Ulam.

Edit: A 1-dimensional object embedded in n-space is describable as ##(f_1(x), f_2(x),...,f_n(x))##.
An m-dimensional object in k-space is describable as ## (f_1(x_1,..., x_m), f_2(x_1,x_2,..,x_m),,..,f_k(x_1,x_2,..,x_m) )##
 
Last edited:
Here is a little puzzle from the book 100 Geometric Games by Pierre Berloquin. The side of a small square is one meter long and the side of a larger square one and a half meters long. One vertex of the large square is at the center of the small square. The side of the large square cuts two sides of the small square into one- third parts and two-thirds parts. What is the area where the squares overlap?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K