How is a 2-sphere in a 3 dimensional space?

  • Thread starter Thread starter fk378
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Space
Click For Summary
A 2-sphere is defined as a 2-dimensional surface embedded in 3-dimensional space, which can be confusing since three coordinates seem necessary to describe points on it. However, only two coordinates are needed because the radius is fixed, allowing points to be represented using spherical coordinates (\theta, \phi). In higher dimensions, an n-sphere is embedded in n+1 dimensional space, where one coordinate is dependent on the others. For example, in a plane defined by three points, any point can be expressed using two parameters, confirming its 2-dimensional nature. Thus, while three coordinates can describe a 2-sphere, it remains a 2-dimensional surface due to its dependence on only two parameters.
fk378
Messages
366
Reaction score
0
How is a 2-sphere in a 3 dimensional space?
I do not understand how, according to wikipedia, a 2-sphere is a "2-dimensional surface (which is embedded in 3-dimensional space)."

Why is it not a 3-dimensional surface, since we need 3 coordinates to determine a point on the sphere?
 
Physics news on Phys.org


no. you only need two coordinates. r is fixed therefore any point is given by the coordinates \theta,\phi. this generalises to hgiher dimensions.

i.e. S^{n} is embedded in n+1 dimensional space.
 


In class we had an example where U is the set of all vectors x with n+1 coordinates in the n-sphere. How can there be n+1 coordinates in an n-dimensional sphere?
 


fk378 said:
In class we had an example where U is the set of all vectors x with n+1 coordinates in the n-sphere. How can there be n+1 coordinates in an n-dimensional sphere?
One of the coordinates must be a function of the other n. In the example of the "two sphere", we can identify all points as (\rho, \theta, \phi) using spherical coordinates. But \rho is a constant, the radius of the sphere.

Another example is the plane through (1, 0, 0), (0, 1, 0), and (0, 0, 1). The equation of that plane is, of course, x+ y+ z= 1. Any point on that plane can be labeled (x, y, z) but we can write anyone of those coordinates in terms of the other two. For example, (x, y, 1-x-y). Another possiblilty would be (x, 1- x- z, z). Three coordinates, but written in terms of two parameters- a two dimensional surface imbedded in a three dimensional space.
 


So if you write it out as (x,y,z) is it still considered to be a 2-dimensional surface? The point is that you *can* write it out in terms of 2 parameters, is this correct?
 


Yes this is correct, as stated in HallsofIvy's last sentence.
 
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K