Can an n-dimensional object fit entirely in n-1 dimensions?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Einstein's Cat
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    2d 3d Space
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on whether an n-dimensional object can exist entirely within n-1 dimensions, with participants highlighting the philosophical and mathematical implications of the question. It is generally agreed that such an object cannot fully exist in a lower dimension, as the definitions of "exist entirely" and "fit in" need clarification. The concept of embedding n-dimensional objects in (n-1) dimensions is also explored, with references to specific mathematical theorems like the Borsuk-Ulam theorem. The conversation emphasizes the importance of preserving intrinsic properties, such as topology and geometry, when considering dimensionality. Ultimately, the consensus leans towards the impossibility of such existence based on the definitions of dimensions involved.
Einstein's Cat
Messages
182
Reaction score
2
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
Maybe , OP, you want to know if an n-dimensional object can be embedded in (n-1)-dimensions? Or are there other types of properties of the object that you want to preserve? I think you can say no for n-spheres (I think a corollary of Borsuk-Ulam theorem) and for ##\mathbb R^n ##, but I don't know of a more general result. But I think the answer ultimately depends on what (types of) intrinsic properties of the object you want to preserve in the lower dimensions: topology, geometry, etc.? Interesting question, though.
In one sense of dimension, the answer is no: if you see the dimension n of an object as the minimal number of coordinates of a point needed to uniquely identify each point in the space, then the answer would be (is) no.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Einstein's Cat
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 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K