Creating 2D Maps: Practical Approaches and Limitations for 2D Creatures

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter PatrickPowers
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    2d
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion explores how hypothetical two-dimensional creatures might create maps of their world, considering practical approaches and limitations inherent to their dimensionality. It examines the nature of mapping in a 2D context, drawing analogies to our own 3D mapping practices.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that a 2D map for 2D creatures would need to be transparent to allow for triangulation, proposing a circular map that one could enter to view a perspective drawing in all directions.
  • Another participant draws an analogy between 2D maps of 2D objects and 3D maps of 3D objects, stating that a 2D creature would need a 3D scale replica to accurately represent their world.
  • Some participants argue that while the surface of the Earth can be simplified to 2D for mapping purposes, it is fundamentally 3D, and this simplification may not hold in all cases, particularly when considering variations in height.
  • One participant mentions using color to indicate distance on a 2D map, similar to how topographical maps represent elevation in 3D space.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the dimensionality of surfaces and the implications for mapping. There is no consensus on whether a 2D map can accurately represent a 2D world, nor on the nature of dimensional simplifications.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in understanding dimensionality and mapping techniques, particularly regarding assumptions about perspective and the significance of height in mapping practices.

PatrickPowers
Messages
237
Reaction score
1
Suppose we were completely two-dimensional creatures, two dimensions plus time. How would we make maps?

The obvious idea is that we make a 2-D map which is our world on a smaller scale. But there is a problem with that. If the map is 2D paper then we can only sense the edge, so it's useless. Instead it would have to be something like glass. It would be necessary to look through the map and triangulate by moving around. I guess that would work. Would be difficult to make.A more practical way would be a line with a perspective drawing on it. It would depend on a certain view though. It would be a "this is what you would see if you are standing at this point looking in a certain direction." Taking it a step further, the map could be a circle that one gets inside by opening the circle, entering, and closing the circle again. Then one would see a perspective drawing in every direction. It would be centered at one specific point of the region. One would have to imagine oneself inside the scene to estimate distances between two points not at the map's origin.

What if instead of a circle we made a ring of glass, and moved around inside of that? I think relations would be distorted. It would be of some use but would take practice to make sense of, and if you wanted to be exact you would have to use math.

I think that this is the best you could do. You couldn't make a map that didn't assume a point of view. The only way we get away with making paper maps like that is that our 3rd dimension is insignificant. One does not find one hundred cities stacked on top of one another.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In our 3D world we make 2D maps of 2D objects, such as the surface of the Earth.

So a map in a 2D world would analogously be a 1D map of a 1D object (line segments).

A 2D denizen attempting to make a 2D map of a 2D object is analogous to us in our 3D world trying to make a 3D map of a 3D object. It would have a be a 3D scale replica of the 3D object. And, unless it were transparent, we would only be able to see its outer surface.
 
The surface of the Earth IS 3d, not 2d(bet this starts a fight), as patrick said, we can simplify it to 2d because the height is insignificant in most cases.

Depending on what we are mapping you could use color to indicate distance, just as we use color to indicate the 3rd dimension of the surface in a topographical map

The 2d surface would only be true of a smooth sphere whose height was a constant distance to the center, otherwise using only longitude and latitude does not tell you the radius from the center.
 
Zula110100100 said:
The surface of the Earth IS 3d, not 2d(bet this starts a fight), as patrick said, we can simplify it to 2d because the height is insignificant in most cases.
Yes.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K