4D is like explaining the concept of color to a blind person.

@iamnode2088

2 жыл бұрын

well what you said is so accurate

@hollymolly7685

2 жыл бұрын

Is it that difficult?

@Adventure-Zero

2 жыл бұрын

Lol I love it

@fakharabbasbaloch7331

2 жыл бұрын

Pretty accurate, but there will be a certain point of time when the blind person fully understands colours, and so I can kind of process what is going on. 4D is not that difficult to understand, it depends on the wildness of your brain.

Now I know what it’s like to a 4d person to open up a 4d present (kind of), Nice!

@Jobe-13

2 жыл бұрын

😂

@anarcocapitalista3700

2 жыл бұрын

Looking that eighth cube below, at the bottom 1:00 I think that eighth cube below is unnecessary.

@paragbanothe7111

2 жыл бұрын

@@anarcocapitalista3700 no it is not

@neighbourhoodkid27

2 жыл бұрын

@@anarcocapitalista3700 There is supposed to be an eight cube.

@Zenovarse

2 жыл бұрын

4 sides, 6 planes, 8 cubes, 10 tesseracts, that how it goes?

Omg that makes so much more sense than the normal rotational videos!!!

Unwrapping a 4D dimensional shape will turn into a 3D dimensional format. Just like how a cube unwrap itself into a cross. But a tesseract will unwrap into a cross with 3D planes.

"Not right now babe, I'm watching a 4 dimentional cube being unfolded"

This is my blanket when i'm trying to turn to the longer side

@jesseolsson1697

3 жыл бұрын

thanks for the hearty heehee

I am just, literally unable to fathom the tesseract

@alexpearson8481

Жыл бұрын

you have to draw your own. search up drawing a Tesseract. Two cubes first, almost touching, then attach the corners. Once you’ve drawn it, let your mind wander and try to find the eight different cubes inside. The cubes will overlap and appear to share 3 d space. When you see it, this is precisely the fourth dimension…… sadly nobody explains it this way. Some of the cubes will be distorted, but in reality they are not. The more you look at your Tesseract the more you will see this overlapping 3D space. Your brain will tell you that one cube HAS to de dominant, but that’s not the case in 4D. All of the cubes three dimensional overlap is correct and equally valid in the 4 dimensional volume. The key is to draw your own and let your mind be fluid. Edit: when you draw your own don’t put One cube inside the other like they show here although it’s probably technically correct it doesn’t help you understand. Start withdrawing one cube then draw another cube up and to the right on a 45° angle and almost touching. Just google images. Use a ruler and be clean and neat. For the lines attaching the cubes use dotted lines. this helps as well.

@unfinishedsenten

Жыл бұрын

I think all of us are. That's kind of the point.

You're essentially looking at the "shadow" of the tesseract in 3D; just as a cube's shadow can be projected on a 2D surface. Carl Sagan explained this perfectly in one of his earlier recordings. But to be clear, what you are seeing here is not the true image of a tesseract, but rather a 3-dimensional representation of what its projected shadow would look like.

@craigharkins4669

7 жыл бұрын

Carl Sagan's explanation of this is so brilliant. I love that man!

@harshitagupta598

7 жыл бұрын

Christian Gutierrez hey,it is a coincidence that I had just watched the video that you have mentioned in your comment and I was wondering how they find out the shadow of tessarect and I am not able to find the video so if you know and if it is possible can you plz plz explain me.

I know you all are thinking. "It's cheap! This guy just put a couple of 3D cubes into a 3D animating software to pretend he invented the 4th dimension." But there's a couple things you need to think about. You would have to be extremely imaginative in order to see a 4th dimension. Our eyes have never seen a 4-dimensional object. Mathematicians can only guess what a 4th dimension could look like. It just doesn't seem possible. But then again, if we had lived on a plane, and we were presented with depth, we would be as confused as we are looking at this video. To our eyes on a plane, it would look like an object was just getting bigger and smaller. That is exactly why a tesseract looks like a couple of 3D cubes to us. It's because we don't know anything outside 3 dimensions. On top of that, it's pretty difficult to emulate 4D in a 3D animating studio on a 2D screen.

@DerAhlke9877

9 жыл бұрын

As I said in the comment above, nobody can imagine an object with more than 3 spatial dimensions. What the animator did, is imagining of the projection of a normal cube on a wall, which is a smaller square in a bigger one and its vertices are connected with lines. At first you take the net of this thing an held it parallel to the wall. Of course you se the same thing on the wall, but eventually a little bigger due to the diffusion of the light. Then you fold the net up to a regular cube. As soon as you make it, the square in the center, the one which is surrounded by the for other squares, stays at its place. But the four squares around the centersquare are crooked up to trapezoids. And at last the sixth cube, which sits on one of the surroundingcubes, is streatched to a very wide thing, until it matches up to the bigger square, which is already shaped by the four crooked sourroundingcubes. Now take this, and exert it for the 3D-net of the 4D-Hypercube, the tesseract. It works simulatneously but at last with 8 threedimensional cubes instead of 6 twodimensional squares. I hope it helped a little bit! :)

@bennimusnetzer3618

9 жыл бұрын

Actually, the cubes aren't concentric. Since this is a 3D projection, we can't see 4D depth. The "smaller" cube is actually behind the "larger" cube in 4D space. Picture looking at a cube straight-on. For two-dimensional eyes it would look like a smaller square inside a larger square connected by lines. It's not impossible to imagine 4D space, it's just really hard and requires a lot of practice.

@DerAhlke9877

9 жыл бұрын

Bennimus Netzer That is exactly what it is about!

@bennimusnetzer3618

9 жыл бұрын

You seemed to be presenting the basics to me, so I tried to enlighten the situation.

@Dreamprism

9 жыл бұрын

Bennimus Netzer In some sense it's not quite that good either, since a 2D creature wouldn't see a square the same way we do. He would have to form the squares out of some translucent material in order to see through the front side of the outer square, the front side of the inner square, and the back side of the inner square in order to see the rest of the back side of the outer square. Thankfully, in 3D we don't have to use translucent material for our edges to make wireframe diagrams that are useful for visualization of higher dimensions - and we don't even have to put material on our faces because the edges themselves keep the figure connected. A 4D creature visualizing the 5th dimension could (but doesn't have to) form all the faces of that figure out of opaque material and still be able to use it as a visualization, but they couldn't make the 3D cells on the surface opaque. For these reasons, I believe that nD creatures are able to visualize (n+1)D slightly better than (n-1)D creatures are able to visualize nD, with the distinction being more important the lower n is. In the extreme case, we have a 1D creature trying to imagine 2D. He'd be so tremendously bad at understanding any concept of "length" that of course the 2D creature who knows what length is can imagine 3D better than the 1D creature can imagine 2D. Or if we really want to go extreme (and pretend these creatures are somehow biologically and neurologically feasible, even though that seems unlikely), a 0D creature would fail even harder at imagining 1D than the 1D creature does at imagining 2D, since at least the 1D creature understands what it means to see. His view may be only a point, but he can imagine that point changing color over time (if we pretend color is somehow viable). The 0D creature doesn't have any way of understanding what sight is. You probably didn't need to be told all of this, but I got carried away.

A line has 2 dots A square has 4 lines A cube has 6 squares A tesseract has 8 cubes

Most useful demonstration of a hypercube I've come across. Cheers for this.

@vvpanfilov

9 жыл бұрын

Thank you. :)

Perfect description and quite simply put. It's the best of all hypercube explaining videos I saw. ¡¡¡ BRAVO BRAVO BRAVO !!!

I watch *_O N E_* video about the fourth dimension and this is what I get

It’s impossible for us to experience 4d in a 3d space. All we see is its shadow in a way. Same if something lived in 2d saw a 3d object. To them it would only appear in parts not the whole. Carl Sagan had a great explanation of this.

@BushidoBrownSama

3 жыл бұрын

It's a projection, much like how you can draw a "3D" cube on paper a 2 medium

@Anonymous-zw8kx

2 жыл бұрын

My opinion is that even we draw a 3d cube on a 2d paper (well not technically) we can still perceive that is a cube so same may apply for 4d too

This isn't actually a 4D object as we can't perceive anything in the 4th dimension, the shape shown here is a tesseract shadow, which is 3D. The best way to grasp this idea is that a 2D object creates a 1 dimensional shadow, being a line, and a 3D object creates a 2D shadow. The next step would be a 4D shape creating a 3 dimensional shadow, which is this figure here. A real tesseract would look similar except all lines would be equal length and all angles would be right angles while folded, which is impossible to depict in 3 dimensions.

I am very jealous of anyone who can actually wrap their mind around this object.

@vvpanfilov

9 жыл бұрын

Jesusdragon737 This video is made to you too. All you need is try to do... Really. Good luck

@DrScrubbington

9 жыл бұрын

Jesusdragon737 I can see how it folds into 4d from 3d, just as how a cube folds into 3d from 2d. But obviously humans cannot fully understand and see 4d space because we live in a 3d universe.

@Komory

9 жыл бұрын

InfinityV0rtex Thats not sure, maybe we only think we life in a 3 dimensional Universe. Dark Matter for an example could exist in a higher dimensions of space, thats why it's there but we can't see it. It's only a theory of course.

@xUdieToox

9 жыл бұрын

Jesusdragon737 It's really not that difficult, if you think of it in this way: 1 dimension would simply be represented as the x-axis, where you can only go left and right. 2d is simply an expansion of space of that initial concept, in that by adding the y axis, you now have the ability to go up and down, because the second dimension, represented as y, is nothing more than an infinite stack of the x axis. Therefore, the 3rd dimension is nothing but an infinite stack of the 2nd dimension, represented by the z axis. Following this logic, it is then reasonable to assume that the 4th dimension is nothing more than an infinite stack of the 3rd dimension, which is hard to visualise, but can still be represented in 3d space, much the same way a cube can be represented on a flat sheet of paper.

@TriumVee

9 жыл бұрын

Jesusdragon737 It's an 8 bit vortex ring when it moves on the YW axis. Watch a smoke vortex ring video and you will get a better grasp.

the best and most descriptive depiction thus far. thanks

This really inspires me, but also disturbs and scares me in a way that I cannot properly convey.

The Tesseract is not hard to understand, it is a 3D cube, but since in 4D you can see the inside side as well, the cube in the middle is a projection of the inner sides

@hoohohohter

4 жыл бұрын

The smaller cube inside is not really inside it per se, it's actually further away

@grevengriff8609

3 жыл бұрын

But in a 4th dimension, all the cubes are the same size and not in angles like this

@professionalhentaiwatcher6504

3 жыл бұрын

Ok then, assuming that it's just a 3d cube but you also see the inside A 3d cube has 6 faces. For each of those faces there exist an inside face Now, According to the assumption that you can see the inside side as well We see the 6 sides that exist in 3d Plus the other 6 sides that 6×2 = 12 So according to the assumption, the tesseract has 12 faces But actually, in theory we already know that a tesseract has 24 faces. Hence the assumption and your understanding is wrong. Your understanding of the “tesseract” is wrong but I can see where it comes from. Actually when you use the word tesseract in your understanding, it is not tesseract. It is a regular cube but from the perspective from 4th dimension. A man who exists in the 4th dimension can see the 6 sides we see and everything that is inside the cube (which are 6 more sides If the cube is hollow) all at once. But a tesseract is not just a cube in 4d but it is something Which can only exist in 4d. Similar to how a cube is not just a square in 3d but something that only exist in the 3d. A square in 3d is still a square. But in 3d we can look at all 4 sides of the square at once. In 2d we can only look at one side at a time. A tesseract is made by joining 8 cubes together. But we can't just do that by stacking 3d cubes together. all the cubes must be perpendicular to adjacent cubes. But doing so is physically impossible in 3d. We can only do this when we already have access to the 4th dimension For example A cube is formed by joining 6 squares (2d figures) So If we simply keep stacking the 2d figures together in 2d we would end up with a cross or a rectangle. The only way to form a cube is to stack the squares perpendicular to Thier adjacent squares and parallel to opposite squares. Again, we can't do this with access limited to the 2 dimensions and we would already need a 3rd dimension. An additional point to the tesseract is Out of the 6 sides of the cube used to form a tesseract. Only 3 of the sides are visible on the outside.

We are only shadows of our 4D selves

@carryon5021

4 жыл бұрын

What if they are shadows of their 5D selves?

@seanathans103

3 жыл бұрын

cross sections, not shadows

Anyone else remember back in elementary where we made a cube from 6 squares in cross shape?

@dsweet5273

9 жыл бұрын

Exactly. It's a perfect example of how three dimensional cubes are comprised of two dimensional places with each side running parallel or perpendicular to each other. So a fourth dimensional cube would be compressed of three dimensional sides each running parallel or perpendicular to each other. Obviously thats not what we see in the video because a fourth dimensional object cannot be represented accurately in three dimensional space. Drawing a cube on paper gives a similar distortion. The sides are no longer all parallel or perpendicular. We lost a dimension and therefore the image is not accurate.

Best experienced with 4D glasses

3d cubes unwrapped makes 2d sides, and 4d cubes unwrapped makes 3d cubes brain unlocked

@h-noonyt9741

Жыл бұрын

4d hypercubes*

I got a small clue of what it is the hypercube. Nice explanation

@Dylank001

3 жыл бұрын

He came back to heart this comment after 11 years, what a legend

@anticlickbait

3 жыл бұрын

@@Dylank001 I feel honored 🤭

@vvpanfilov

3 жыл бұрын

@@Dylank001 i'm still watching for you ))))

It looks as if you can see inside & outside at the same time in the 4th dimension. So now we have left&right (1D), front&back (2D), up&down (3D) and in&out (4D)

Anyone else unreasonably angry that we just can’t see 4d objects?

@MahmoudHMo

6 күн бұрын

yep buddy, it's annoying that we just can't visualize data that greater than 3D

@stacklysm

5 күн бұрын

Same, we can barely see 3d, since to us its just a 2d projection

This was very helpful. Thank you! I was having trouble seeing where the eighth cell came from.

We can not see the 4D shape but we may imagine in a diffirent way. In this video we only see the movements of its 3D shadow

@charbelalam2648

2 жыл бұрын

Tho when you unfold a 4D object, it turns in a 3d object, just like unfolding a cube makes squares, and unfolding squares makes lines.

Man going to primary school on the 4th dimension must suck, imagen having to draw all those lines just for your standard "cube"

@TYGR2115

3 жыл бұрын

@Charles Bruins i mean . . . a 4d being could draw in 3 dimensions, on a 3d "sheet" of paper . . . i imagine it wouldn't be terribly difficult for them XD

The best way to understand why it's so difficult to visualize it is by watching Carl Sagan's explanation of 4D. The part about how 2D objects would be so confused with 3D objects is how we (3D) are so confused by 4D.

4D model in a 3D resolution in a 2D screen

@Angut96

2 жыл бұрын

Trying to understand with 1D brain

@blueythecube9780

2 жыл бұрын

@@Angut96 with my 0D brain cells

@99Venom

2 жыл бұрын

@@Angut96 very original joke

@e-xmile1044

Жыл бұрын

@@99Venom very original comment

Cool, now do this with a hypersphere

Best explanation i've seen so far of this! Thank you

Just realized shapes are unwrapped to show all sides of it without having to turn it or pick it up and is shown one dimension less, so 2d would see 1d as we see 2d and 4d would see 3d as we see 2d, it would just look a lot different. Which means 4d would see all of the 3d objects sides and corners without having to turn it or move it around as we do with 3d objects to see all sides, if that makes sense. Maybe.

@linuxd

7 жыл бұрын

Dank Beef It does. it'd be like looking at a piece of paper to us.

@kismetsfursec

7 жыл бұрын

Dank Beef Maybe humans should hire a 4D being to perform surgery.

This just destroyed my brain. Gonna have to rewatch this a few hundred times.

I never see such a correct beautiful showcase .Thank you🥰

Here's the summary... A line is made out of points A square is made out of lines A cube is made out of squares A tesseract is made out of cubes

@luvustelewis

3 жыл бұрын

in the order of: 2 points, 4 lines, 6 squares, and 8 cubes. so, a 5th dimension object can be represented by a volume bound by 16 tesseracts

@herman7417

3 жыл бұрын

@@luvustelewis there can be no 4th dimension if time is not explained. 3-d+time. so first, the time has to be thoroughly explained and defined before progression can be made to the supposed 4th dimension. and time is a paradox, if explained right it self-resolves into oneness. After 3-d empiricism breaks down and collapses. To solve the collapse is to solve the paradox into a self-resolving paradox and the end of mechanical thinking. --> CTMU

@180rotator

3 жыл бұрын

Width then Length then Height and Time/Trength and ????

@prismarinestars7471

3 жыл бұрын

Lewis Luvuste It doesn’t double each dimension, it increases by 2. A 5d hypercube is bound by 10 tesseracts.

@XmanSully

3 жыл бұрын

My brain is made out of a potato

Im so sorry for your son. Hope hes doing good right now

@ylanberri1464

2 жыл бұрын

What happened?

@K4L3P4

2 жыл бұрын

@@ylanberri1464 read the description

So much clearer now, thanks for sharing!

Oh gods, my brain . . .

I'm not sure, but I think I got it.. if you look at the three directions represented by the arrows at the beginning, you have to remember that just like how each direction is at a right angle to the other two, the W direction is at a right angle to to ALL THREE of the arrows. If you can try to 'imagine' that, you suddenly realize you 'run out of room' when you try to think of it at a right angle to each direction in 3 dimensional space, so there's another direction that you haven't thought of before-- not up-down, left-right, forward-back, but inside-outside. Inside being towards or pointed behind our three dimensional space, outside being away from or pointed in front of our three dimensional space. If you think about living on a two-dimensional plane, the up-down direction would ALSO be inside-outside from your perspective, since up-down doesn't normally exist; 'up' would take you outside of your plane, and 'down' would take you back into it. Going 'down' from there would then be 'outside,' and going back 'up' until you're back in your original 2d plane would then be 'inside.' Thinking of it that way helped me do the mental gymnastics needed to get a better grip on it, I think. I still don't get it 100% (and that could be impossible unless we either experience it for ourselves, or if we had four-dimensional hyperspheres for eyes instead of spherical eyes). Instead of 'where is it, there doesn't seem to be any room for it if it's not up, down, left, right, forwards or backwards?', realize that it's not any of these. Just remember W is at a right angle to ALL THREE of them and that it's inside-outside our three dimensional 'plane.'

@vvpanfilov

6 жыл бұрын

You got it, congrats! )

@arthurleal2674

5 жыл бұрын

So basically you have to train your mind to understand and imagine 4d. I think with your eyes closed you can achieve this after some time.

Wait so the 4D is similar to unwrapping the 3D cube to squares?

my brain is melting

wait this actually makes sense now

@hydrogamer471

3 жыл бұрын

Don't kid your self lol

@Ok-yr5ov

3 жыл бұрын

@@hydrogamer471 LMAO it makes a *bit* more sense now

Timmy unwrapping his Christmas present in 4D

this video helped me understand the concept a little clearer, thanks

*You're pinching it infinitely tight*

@alreadynestedhumanwine

3 жыл бұрын

Wrong video idiot

@thedoublessymbol

3 жыл бұрын

@@alreadynestedhumanwine no need for toxicity idiot

Thanks. I was thinking about this today and finally imagined 3D nets folding into (the surface of) 4D as an animated process for the first time. I checked KZread for a video on it and your video essentially matches up with the animation in my head.

For people who don't understand the 8th cube, think about it this way. The cube in this video was shown as a wireframe, since some surfaces span in a direction we can't see. So you have the 6 squares that make up a 3d cube. When the squares are drawn in wireframe and folded, putting on or removing the 6th square makes does not change the wireframe of the final cube. Since volume (m^3) does not make sense to 2D beings, the cubes with and without the 6th square are the same thing. Then you have the 8 cubes that make up a 4d tesseract. When the cubes are drawn in surfaces and "folded", putting on or removing the 8th cube does not change in the surface-view of the final tesseract. Since Euclidean hypervolume (m^4) does not make sense to 3D beings, the tesseracts with and without the 8th cube are the same thing.

@marcospaulreal5922

9 жыл бұрын

This is actually a great analogy and it helped me understand the transition between a 3d cube and a 4d hypercube a bit more. Thanks a lot!

Excellent video particularly the wrapping and unwrapping of dimensions

Woo! Now it's an epic concept AND sounds epic!!

Im stunned of the simplicidy of your video, about something so abstract as a tesseract!

I must say... the Hype is real

Good job . This simple simulation just proof one of the most unknown weapons.

Soo cool! This video is the best at explaining it to me yet.

This is the first time I've actually ever gotten this, thanks ^^

That was actually REALLY cool 😎 👌

so basically, in the 4th dimension it's possible for objects to move through themselves and change shapes. It doesn't make sense to us because we're used to the 3-dimensional reality we live in but a 4th dimension would be perfectly normal to creatures in a higher dimension.

@josephsmith3961

4 жыл бұрын

It’s not really changing properties of what they can do, but it’s the right idea. Like how it would be confusing for a creature in 2-D space to perceive an object moving through 3-D space when it’s just being moved along another dimension. Objects can’t move THROUGH themselves in 4-D, but it seems like it does from our spacial perception. It’s just a different frame of mind when there’s an extra dimension to explore. :)

@absolute___zero

4 жыл бұрын

@@josephsmith3961 soon it will be possible to visualize 4 dimensions. all we need is to wait for the available technology to insert 700 billion more neurons in our brains, connect these new neurons to the "dimensionality perceptor engine" and voila, you can see 4 dimensions now. It is just the question of neuronal resources.

@IgorMgtowandVideoGames

4 жыл бұрын

@@absolute___zero very intresting

@HueHanaejistla

4 жыл бұрын

no, it doesn't self intersect the reason it changes shape is because this a projection into 3D space, this doesn't really transfer over to the 4th dimension at all just as how when you unfold a cube into a cross, where all of the square faces don't change shape, the same way a 4D cube unfolds into some sort of tree without any of its cube faces deforming, its just that because you can't emulate the 4th axis without deformations in 3D space is why the cubes appear to pass through each other and change shape also its not necessarily harder to visualize the 4th dimension, if you've played any 4D games or gotten used to the math its actually fairly easy

@_Killkor

3 жыл бұрын

They're not interjecting or phasing through. It's all due to perspective and the limitations of our 3D Universe. Try drawing a cube on a piece of paper (which is a 2D plain). Notice, how your squares of that cube look out of proportion, and seemingly intersecting with each other. Now, we know, it's because they're "behind" the other squares, but try to explain that concept to a 2D being, that doesn't know what "depth" is and see how far you can get. It's the same with 4D objects. The smaller cube inside the tesseract is the side that is the furthest away in the 4D space, and the cube that is "all-encompasing" is actually the front side of the tesseract, the closest to us in 4D space. Our brains developed their sense of direction within our 3D space, so exposing ourselves to this expanded 4D geometry, introducing a new axis of movement, leaves us with severe headache - it's normal though. We fail to visualize the 4D in our head, as we simply have no concept of this 4th direction, except for our familiar x y and z.

Beautifully shown ✌

That darned bottom cube folding over the whole thing. That's probably the part we can't see with our 3D eyes.

Loki wants to know your location

I think half of my brain just melted.

wow! this is the cleanest animation ive seen of a hypercube!

I like this unwrapping technique as an aid to grasp 4d cube. Thanks for this.

Bruh it makes sense now! It reminded me of turning clothes inside out

Bro is getting extra pressents before GTA VI

Beautiful!!! Thanks Vladimir!

*MIND BLOWN*

I get it. But we can't place the 4th axis anywhere. It has to be perpendicular to all the other 3 which is impossible in 3 dimensions. We can never experience, see or completely imagine a 4 dimensional object. This is why it's so interesting though.

@Templarfreak

7 жыл бұрын

I disagree. You may not be able to figure out where to place the axis, but you can totally see it's affects from visualization. it would work just like any other axis. Get closer on that axis, and the object appears larger. Rotate around the object on that particular axis, and it changes shape and size. It would be no different with 4 dimensions. Put 2 3D cubes on the same X,Y, and Z but with a bit of space between them on W. From the right angle they look like they're in the same spot. Move along W and you see the space between them.

4-D beings have 3-D shadows ....just like we have 2-d shadows

@samuraiesthetics

3 жыл бұрын

and our consciousness is just a 3d shadow of 4d (aka REAL) consciousness of 4d beings. That explains why we don't understand wtf we're doing. We are just a 3d passengers LOL

@shefinjose1203

3 жыл бұрын

@@samuraiesthetics I agree, some people's near death experience have exact details as 4d beings seeing a 3d space

You are genius not many videos on youtube have been able to portray this as you have

This is really awesome

For just a second there, I was almost able to imagine how it would look like. sigh... I'm so jelly. :(

@ohno421

7 жыл бұрын

Chikane same here! it's such an intriguing concept, and i had it for a second. it made so much sense but then it disappeared

@Joseorlandolimaoliveira

6 жыл бұрын

Tá tudo em inglês

So it's a 3D map for a 4D cube, as the crucifix shape is a 2D map for a 3D cube

bro its epic. exactly what I was searching! nice

That was beautiful.

Love it! 😄💗

@vvpanfilov

4 жыл бұрын

:) Thank's

A square has 4 lines. A cube has 6 squares. A tesseract has 8 cubes.

@bounsterr

3 жыл бұрын

mY bRaiN

@ActualSpectra

3 жыл бұрын

*Oh sh*t.*

@butterscottowo

3 жыл бұрын

A brane has 10 tesseracts

@TT-ii9cm

3 жыл бұрын

@@butterscottowo In yours' the i(-th)'s missing

@butterscottowo

3 жыл бұрын

@@TT-ii9cm i meant like brane from membrane

Thankyou, that was beautiful and simple. Using cubes to draw the 4th dimensional next step.

Excellent video. Like how a 3d cube has six 2d sides of equal areas, a tesseract has eight 3d cells (cubes) of equal volumes where each face of the cells touch another cell like how each edge of a 3d cube touches two faces. This is why you see it unfold like that in the video, this is the best we've got in visually explaining how this would look.

i wish the zoom didn't happen at the same time as the unfolding. zoom out then unfold, fold back in, and then zoom in. oh well.

1:11 So you know when you get a 3D cube and you make it flat onto a piece of paper (so its in 2D) and then you can fold it back in to a 3D cube and how it makes a cross shape, well its the same in 4D but this time instead of the cross being in 2D it is in 3D and it folds back into 4D

Very cool work.

good video! really points out that just because the cubes are distorted in the common 3d projection it doesn't mean they're not there or real cubes.

good stuff, very interesting.

Tripping fucking balls right now

That unfolded "shadow" of the Tesseract looks really cool, ngl.

Well rendered!

But humans are unable to see a 4-dimensional object on a 3-dimensional scale on a 2-dimensional screen in our 1-dimensional brains

@bhavplayzz1739

5 жыл бұрын

Nice joke copied from that guy explaining the 11th dimension

@GVOESPEE

5 жыл бұрын

@@bhavplayzz1739 what guy?

okay so read this pls Axis: 1D Axis = Length 2D Axis = Height 3D Axis = Width/Breadth/Depth or Whatever 4D Axis = Blith* Directions: 1D = Left, Right 2D = Up, Down 3D = Front, Back 4D = Bante*, Awtene* *=there you go new words so yea

@kuutti256

10 күн бұрын

How the hell did you get thosevwords?

Thanks for the video. I'll keep thinking about it.

After playing around with 4D maze simluations, I can finally understand what I'm watching here and will try to answer some of the other comments, if I remember.

There's a lot of people that don't understand that they can't understand 4D that simply. What that simulation shows us is the 3D "shadow" of a 4D object. You only see a projection. I see a lot of "it's not that hard to understand, the hypercube is just going inside out" But really it isn't. All the cubes that forms the hypercube are NOT deformed in 4D space, their projection is. Think about this : A rotated (in the 3rd D) 2D paper square shadow can look like a trapezoid on a 2D surface. A rotated (in the 4rt D) 3D cube "shadow" can look like a deformed cube ( an hexahedron ) on a 3D volume. But nothing is deformed, just rotated in a way we can't visualize. You can understand how 4D works, but you cant visualize it.

My brain hurts now.

@cipherclone2661

7 жыл бұрын

Mine OW, too OW

Holds a ton of energy and from the guardians themselves!

I've been doing the math on this for a while now. I needed this thanks.

@vvpanfilov

4 жыл бұрын

I dont clearly got what you need. ) Do you need a library for powvray? - no problem. Send me your email, so I'll send you the the math completely free ))))

ME (8TH CLASS STUDENT)- Oh OK, I understand it Me after reading the comments- *Confused Screaming*

In a cube, each 2d face has four sides, and when it's folded into a cube, each side is connected to two squares. In a tesseract, each 3d face has 6 sides, and when it's folded into a tesseract, each side is connected to two cubes. That's what the 8th cube is for. Without it, the 6 "outer" 2d faces would only be in contact with one cube, leaving a rather large hole in the 4th dimension.

@LucasDanielSantoro

3 жыл бұрын

I lost you at "connected to two squares" I can count four squares. You may want to edit your comment and I'll be happy to follow your explanation.

@MitruMesre

3 жыл бұрын

@@LucasDanielSantoro You're right. Each square is connected to 4 squares, and each cube is connected to 6 cubes, one on each side.

I always knew about the 4-D tesseract (hypercube) but this unwrapping really does help conceptualise it from 4-D to 3-D and back to 4-D. Now about those 4-D equations.

i love the music!