One or more couldn't be resolved in descending dimensions

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of descending from higher to lower dimensions, with a claim that multiple unresolved factors must exist in this process. The original poster presents an experiment involving a basketball and a triangular drawing to illustrate their point. However, participants express confusion over the terminology used, particularly the terms "factor" and "solve (or descend)." They suggest that the poster clarify these terms for better understanding and recommend researching concepts like "Riemannian manifold" and "isometric embedding." Overall, the need for clearer definitions and explanations is emphasized for productive dialogue.
MRzNone
Messages
9
Reaction score
1
In the process of descending from a higher dimension to a lower one, there must be more than one factor that could not be solved (or descend.)
My little own experiment.. http://mr-none.meximas.com/public_html/pic/1.JPG
Steps:
1, wrap a plastic bag around a basketball.
2, draw a "triangle" with three 90˚ angles along the basketball(sphere/ 3 dimension)
3, Cut/tear it.
Here comes the question, Is my statement true?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Which statement?
 
mathman said:
Which statement?
In the process of descending from a higher dimension to a lower one, there must be more than one factor that could not be solved (or descend.)
: )
 
MRzNone said:
In the process of descending from a higher dimension to a lower one, there must be more than one factor that could not be solved (or descend.)

I am sorry, but that sentence makes no sense. What do you mean by "factor" and what does it mean to "solve (or descend)" one? You will have to make your question more clear before anyone here will be able to give you a helpful answer.
 
+1 for Nugatory.

You need to explain 'factor' and 'solve (descend)'. They make no sense.
 
You may want to look up terms like "Riemannian manifold" and "submanifold" and "isometric embedding".
 
comparing a flat solar panel of area 2π r² and a hemisphere of the same area, the hemispherical solar panel would only occupy the area π r² of while the flat panel would occupy an entire 2π r² of land. wouldn't the hemispherical version have the same area of panel exposed to the sun, occupy less land space and can therefore increase the number of panels one land can have fitted? this would increase the power output proportionally as well. when I searched it up I wasn't satisfied with...

Similar threads

Back
Top