I've actually explored a 4-dimensional writing systems before for 4D Golf. A theoretical 4-dimensional being (using a 4D pencil) would be like us writing glyphs from paths through the air in 3D. We can actually do this in VR with motion controls and 3D tracking. But the 4D creature sees this entire "volume" as a just a flat piece of paper to them, so it's much easier to write and that information physically stays on the paper. However, just like we have reading conventions for left-to-right and then top-to-bottom, 4D creatures have an additional ordering for this extra "in-to-out" dimension, so there would be more ambiguity for how cultures write. Anyway, I ended up scrapping this from the game because it was a lot of effort for an Easter Egg that almost no one would spend the effort to decode.
i think something like that would probably work better for an non-linear exploration based game rather than a mostly linear course-clear game like golf.
The 3D letter blocks are writing, and they're 3D, but they're not 3D writing. The actual letter forms are just collections of curves in 2D space, and the blocks are just "fattenings" of the underlying curves. The added bulk doesn't change the meaning, just like bending a sheet of paper with text on it into the third dimension doesn't change the meaning. The blocks are just a different-than-usual embedding of a 2D alphabet into 3D. For characters with a third dimension to actually be 3D writing, there has to be some difference between letters that depends on three dimensional details of their shape or orientation (for example, an o turned 90 degrees out of plane being a separate letter of the alphabet), or some syntactic meaning to their relative orientation (maybe, instead of a question mark, all of the letters in a question being turned 90 degrees out of plane).
Damn, that's not how the geometry works. If you try to use time as the 4th dimension, you get certain planes that are impossible to rotate on that should be completely fine. Any plane that rotates the time axis to a different axis is not possible. Its like seeing someone whose left side is when they're a baby and thier right side is when they die
3:58 some corrections: your distinction between mathematical dimensions and physical ones isn't very correct or useful. For one thing, math definitely studies non-euclidean geometry. That's the whole study of manifolds, Riemannian and non. Einstein's GR is built on this study (and also expands on it). Now, in our physical world, space is 3D, our spacetime is a 4D, curved non-Riemannian manifold. But away from black holes and other extreme objects, it is essentially 'flat'. By flat I mean you can use special relativity to study it. And in this case, we can separate time from space pretty cleanly, and we are left with a euclidean 3D space. On the other hand, while our physical space is definitely 3D, and our spacetime is definitely 4D, there's nothing stopping you from theoretically construct physics in spaces with other dimensions. CodeParade's 4D Golf explores this. And in his videos he makes sure to make distinctions. The 4th dimension here is a 4th spatial dimension, not time. You can rotate your view inside this 4D space, and no crazy relativistic effects come into play. You can build an entirely coherent physics with spaces higher than 3D. It's just not part of our reality. You often use time to help visualize and understand higher dimensional spaces, but it's more of a helper than the underlying reality. Think of those gifs where a camera rocks back and forth. This little motion helps us perceive the depth of the scene, but the scene already had depth. If anything, adding time kinda makes it 4D, but in the same way a flipbook is 3D. The rotating tasseract is more of that idea. Time is not one of the dimensions displayed, but we rotate the tasseract, which is a process in time
While I can appreciate the theorycrafting of writing as it relates to string theory, I am seen Angela Collier's 'string theory lied to us and now science communication is hard' It also contains a play through of the Binding of Isaac to help young folks digest the material
I love that you are totally comfortable with language that pushes past the furthest boundaries of human comprehension, but a little bit of French is where you draw the line.
Have you seen the IMAX movie about string theory yet? I made the mistake of catching it in 11-D. I had to take the glasses off after five minutes, it was giving me car-sickness. The IMAX staff were super nice about it though. They gave me a free ticket to one of the 10-D showings, which was fine.
In a four-dimensional space, glyphs would be volumetric shapes, but they could also be represented by 2-dimensional glyphs if they want. Let's say the glyph "A" is represented in a 4D space by a sphere of radius 1, other glyphs could be just abstract differences in the shape of the internal volume of this sphere, that would be invisible to humans, but since the 4D hypothetical cratures would see the entire volume of the glyph, they would tell apart of every sphere/glyph in a situation where us humans would see just the same sphere of radius 1. So 4D creatures would have more space to store the same amount of information us 3D beings have. This is similar to how 1D glyphs in a 2D dimension takes more space than writing 2D glyphs in a 3D dimension, because you have one more degree of freedom to write things down the higher the dimension you're in.
This is a very elementary understanding of dimensions, bordering on incorrect. There is no difference between the "physical" and "mathematical" dimensions. Physics simply uses the mathematical concepts to describe reality.
"interpret the fourth dimension as scale" Nope nope nope nope nope, this is a deep misunderstanding of why those 3d slices of a 4d sphere look that way. They looky that what because each slide has a different volume and boundary. Thinke about how lines of Lattitude on a sphere look like circles of different radius, but an arbitrary 3D shape could have slices of any shape, and with a size unrelated to the height you sample them from.
There are two distinct concepts here; dimension and rank. Dimension is just the components of a column vector: {{1}, {0}} = 2d {{1}, {0}, {0}, {0}} = 4d Both vectors are pointing in the same direction, towards the x. So the only thing that makes them different is the space they're in. You can use vectors to describe this space: {{1}, {0}, {0}, {1}} = 2d space. Here we have combined two vectors, one pointing towards x and one towards y to describe space. This is called the basis. Note this is insufficient to describe 4d space, that would need a 4x4 matrix. So then all 2x2 matrces are in 2d space, right? Nope. How about this: {{1}, {1}, {0}, {0}} Here both the x and y vectors of the matrix point in the same direction. So it's a 2d space but it's rank 1. Ugh, why am i explaining all this? It'll be a book before I'm finished and nobody cares.
diereses are often used to separate vowels so they don't appear as diphthongs (take naïve for example). i'm guessing coördinates was just a style choice
For something cool, the Dandelion Dynasty books do something interesting with having a 3 dimensional logography made using clay to make simplified models (or in some cases using the symbols as a sort of physical performance)
you're a) fudging things to make string theory fit in and generalizing arbitrarily (although tbf almost all generalization is arbitrary) b) showing little understanding of what mathematics is - non-euclidean geometry is studied, it was invented by mathematicians, and you have created the entirety of the difference between 'physical' and 'mathematical' dimensions from nothing but I do like the concept and most of the rest is good, also quite funny diz
I've actually explored a 4-dimensional writing systems before for 4D Golf. A theoretical 4-dimensional being (using a 4D pencil) would be like us writing glyphs from paths through the air in 3D. We can actually do this in VR with motion controls and 3D tracking. But the 4D creature sees this entire "volume" as a just a flat piece of paper to them, so it's much easier to write and that information physically stays on the paper. However, just like we have reading conventions for left-to-right and then top-to-bottom, 4D creatures have an additional ordering for this extra "in-to-out" dimension, so there would be more ambiguity for how cultures write. Anyway, I ended up scrapping this from the game because it was a lot of effort for an Easter Egg that almost no one would spend the effort to decode.
i think something like that would probably work better for an non-linear exploration based game rather than a mostly linear course-clear game like golf.
ironic that 'code parade' didn't encode information for his fans to decode
The 3D letter blocks are writing, and they're 3D, but they're not 3D writing. The actual letter forms are just collections of curves in 2D space, and the blocks are just "fattenings" of the underlying curves. The added bulk doesn't change the meaning, just like bending a sheet of paper with text on it into the third dimension doesn't change the meaning. The blocks are just a different-than-usual embedding of a 2D alphabet into 3D. For characters with a third dimension to actually be 3D writing, there has to be some difference between letters that depends on three dimensional details of their shape or orientation (for example, an o turned 90 degrees out of plane being a separate letter of the alphabet), or some syntactic meaning to their relative orientation (maybe, instead of a question mark, all of the letters in a question being turned 90 degrees out of plane).
I think there's a decent argument that cuneiform is a three-dimensional writing system, since how the stylus is used to make the marks is important.
Okay now let's write using 1.5 dimensional fractals
Let's write languages that are extinct using 1.5 dimentional fractals
Sign language can be considered 3D since the glyphs are made with 3D objects (hands)
Damn, that's not how the geometry works. If you try to use time as the 4th dimension, you get certain planes that are impossible to rotate on that should be completely fine. Any plane that rotates the time axis to a different axis is not possible. Its like seeing someone whose left side is when they're a baby and thier right side is when they die
3:58 some corrections: your distinction between mathematical dimensions and physical ones isn't very correct or useful. For one thing, math definitely studies non-euclidean geometry. That's the whole study of manifolds, Riemannian and non. Einstein's GR is built on this study (and also expands on it).
Now, in our physical world, space is 3D, our spacetime is a 4D, curved non-Riemannian manifold. But away from black holes and other extreme objects, it is essentially 'flat'. By flat I mean you can use special relativity to study it.
And in this case, we can separate time from space pretty cleanly, and we are left with a euclidean 3D space.
On the other hand, while our physical space is definitely 3D, and our spacetime is definitely 4D, there's nothing stopping you from theoretically construct physics in spaces with other dimensions.
CodeParade's 4D Golf explores this. And in his videos he makes sure to make distinctions. The 4th dimension here is a 4th spatial dimension, not time. You can rotate your view inside this 4D space, and no crazy relativistic effects come into play.
You can build an entirely coherent physics with spaces higher than 3D. It's just not part of our reality.
You often use time to help visualize and understand higher dimensional spaces, but it's more of a helper than the underlying reality.
Think of those gifs where a camera rocks back and forth. This little motion helps us perceive the depth of the scene, but the scene already had depth. If anything, adding time kinda makes it 4D, but in the same way a flipbook is 3D. The rotating tasseract is more of that idea. Time is not one of the dimensions displayed, but we rotate the tasseract, which is a process in time
While I can appreciate the theorycrafting of writing as it relates to string theory, I am seen Angela Collier's 'string theory lied to us and now science communication is hard'
It also contains a play through of the Binding of Isaac to help young folks digest the material
Becoming Québécois? That's cruel and unusual!
and punishment?
I love that you are totally comfortable with language that pushes past the furthest boundaries of human comprehension, but a little bit of French is where you draw the line.
2:38 FINLAAAAAAND!!! COME OVER HERE
4d writing vs ancient albanian sign language
Have you seen the IMAX movie about string theory yet? I made the mistake of catching it in 11-D. I had to take the glasses off after five minutes, it was giving me car-sickness. The IMAX staff were super nice about it though. They gave me a free ticket to one of the 10-D showings, which was fine.
Coördinates
darn it idk if I can awake at 3 lol
@@takashi.mizuiro karnataka moment :(
Eh, the string theory bit is mostly word salad honestly, I'm sorry
In a four-dimensional space, glyphs would be volumetric shapes, but they could also be represented by 2-dimensional glyphs if they want.
Let's say the glyph "A" is represented in a 4D space by a sphere of radius 1, other glyphs could be just abstract differences in the shape of the internal volume of this sphere, that would be invisible to humans, but since the 4D hypothetical cratures would see the entire volume of the glyph, they would tell apart of every sphere/glyph in a situation where us humans would see just the same sphere of radius 1.
So 4D creatures would have more space to store the same amount of information us 3D beings have. This is similar to how 1D glyphs in a 2D dimension takes more space than writing 2D glyphs in a 3D dimension, because you have one more degree of freedom to write things down the higher the dimension you're in.
This is a very elementary understanding of dimensions, bordering on incorrect. There is no difference between the "physical" and "mathematical" dimensions. Physics simply uses the mathematical concepts to describe reality.
yep
"interpret the fourth dimension as scale"
Nope nope nope nope nope, this is a deep misunderstanding of why those 3d slices of a 4d sphere look that way. They looky that what because each slide has a different volume and boundary. Thinke about how lines of Lattitude on a sphere look like circles of different radius, but an arbitrary 3D shape could have slices of any shape, and with a size unrelated to the height you sample them from.
7:24 : the 9D cube/enneract has 512 vertices, not 712
There are two distinct concepts here; dimension and rank. Dimension is just the components of a column vector:
{{1},
{0}} = 2d
{{1},
{0},
{0},
{0}} = 4d
Both vectors are pointing in the same direction, towards the x. So the only thing that makes them different is the space they're in. You can use vectors to describe this space:
{{1}, {0},
{0}, {1}} = 2d space.
Here we have combined two vectors, one pointing towards x and one towards y to describe space. This is called the basis.
Note this is insufficient to describe 4d space, that would need a 4x4 matrix.
So then all 2x2 matrces are in 2d space, right? Nope. How about this:
{{1}, {1},
{0}, {0}}
Here both the x and y vectors of the matrix point in the same direction. So it's a 2d space but it's rank 1.
Ugh, why am i explaining all this? It'll be a book before I'm finished and nobody cares.
For 3D glyphs, use ink color instead of carving depth as your third dimension.
What's up with the spelling of coordinates? Wiktionary says it is a rare spelling and I don't see how you got to it.
diereses are often used to separate vowels so they don't appear as diphthongs (take naïve for example). i'm guessing coördinates was just a style choice
yep, stylistic choice for dweebery
Should blaze up so you can watch a video about writing in higher dimensions while you're in higher dimensions
For something cool, the Dandelion Dynasty books do something interesting with having a 3 dimensional logography made using clay to make simplified models (or in some cases using the symbols as a sort of physical performance)
WOAHHHHHHHH
Didn't understand this but it was fun and I'm here for the algo
pretty cool
Jokes on you: I can't read the words ''I Love You''
you're a) fudging things to make string theory fit in and generalizing arbitrarily (although tbf almost all generalization is arbitrary)
b) showing little understanding of what mathematics is - non-euclidean geometry is studied, it was invented by mathematicians, and you have created the entirety of the difference between 'physical' and 'mathematical' dimensions from nothing
but I do like the concept and most of the rest is good, also quite funny diz
3:40 braile
im gonna say a bbad oword under your video and get you bannad
sex
amogus