What a Tesseract (4D Cube) Looks Like. ... A 4 dimensional object rendered in 3 dimensions being viewed in 2 dimensions. Mind Fuck
x
Click to expand

Comments(265):

[ 265 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
+74
#1 - gurgleflep **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#19 to #1 - duskmane ONLINE (11/21/2012) [-]
You son of a bitch.
+8
#21 to #19 - gurgleflep **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #61 to #21 - bigdthebeast ONLINE (11/21/2012) [-]
but Loki is adopted
+25
#63 to #61 - gurgleflep **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#24 to #21 - duskmane ONLINE (11/21/2012) [-]
Odn plz...
aschuly iz dedpul.
User avatar #26 - bearhandsahhh (11/21/2012) [-]
A 4 dimensional object rendered in 3 dimensions being viewed in 2 dimensions.
#33 to #26 - iamphoenix (11/21/2012) [-]
An n dimensional object can be viewed as a projection onto an n - 1 dimensional canvas.
#136 to #33 - darkrei (11/21/2012) [-]
you can't view a 2D object on a 1D canvas
for a 1D canvas doesn't exist
#145 to #136 - anon (11/21/2012) [-]
there can't be a 2D object in space either so rendering isn't the problem
But if it existed and if we would render it would be rendered in 1D
#308 to #136 - iamphoenix (11/21/2012) [-]
Math disagrees with you. You can view a three dimensional object as projection onto a 2D canvas. I suppose I should add the stipulation of 'n>2', but I'm not wrong.
User avatar #133 - bryceface (11/21/2012) [-]
Viewing a four dimensional object in two dimensions in a three dimensional world.
User avatar #246 - mastermike (11/21/2012) [-]
a 3D representation of a 4D object on a 2D screen. **** this, I'm switching to an art major!
#157 - Xiiko (11/21/2012) [-]
and here ladies and gentlemen a 3D representation of the 4th dimension on a 2 dimensional plane

have a nice day
#213 - WiggsMaGee ONLINE (11/21/2012) [-]
That's not a 4D shape, its impossible for us to see anything that's in 4D, that's just what we think a 4D shape, converted into 3D looks like
0
#241 to #213 - walmarty **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#194 - sheperdofthestars (11/21/2012) [-]
Has anybody else seen the cube movies? That series was some ****** up **** .
User avatar #222 to #194 - synapse (11/21/2012) [-]
It's much better than saw, in my opinion. Inb4 ********* .
User avatar #204 to #194 - roguehazzard (11/21/2012) [-]
I've seen clips on youtube, other then that I havn't found a single trace of them on the interwebz... thought I was just imagining them
User avatar #206 to #204 - sheperdofthestars (11/21/2012) [-]
I have all three on my comp. I agree with doimas on the fact that #s 2 and 3 were pretty bad compared to #1, but I did enjoy the twist at the end of #3
User avatar #220 to #194 - happygrowman (11/21/2012) [-]
i wish they would finally make a new one. i loved all of them
User avatar #190 - scorcho (11/21/2012) [-]
that's just the 2D representation of the 3D shadow of a 4D object.
#208 to #190 - anon (11/21/2012) [-]
this, how could it even be close to possible to explain 4d objects when this isn't even 3d
User avatar #244 - pocketstooheavy (11/21/2012) [-]
That's still a 3D object...
#245 to #244 - goldengohan ONLINE (11/21/2012) [-]
thats the idea. Every angle in that cube is 90 degrees. ****** 3D perception can only make us see 3D objects
User avatar #211 - rplix (11/21/2012) [-]
I like how everyone is copying the same comment to look smart.

Oh! By the way, that's just the 2D representation of the 3D shadow of a 4D object.
User avatar #212 to #211 - funkysack (11/21/2012) [-]
Oh! By the way, that's just the 2D representation of the 3D shadow of a 4D object.
User avatar #217 to #212 - maffi ONLINE (11/21/2012) [-]
Oh! By the way, that's just the 2D representation of the 3D shadow of a 4D object.
User avatar #219 to #217 - happygrowman (11/21/2012) [-]
Oh! By the way, that's just the 2D representation of the 3D shadow of a 4D object.
#60 - mexicansylar (11/21/2012) [-]
reminds me of this
#45 - daggydaggy (11/21/2012) [-]
I'll explain
It's like drawing a 3D cube on a paper, now you watch a 3D cube in 2D.
That is a 4D cube, and since we live in a 3D world, we can only watch the 4D cube from a 3D perspective.
0
#56 to #45 - superjavelin has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #57 to #45 - superjavelin (11/21/2012) [-]
That's a good way to put it

Another explanation -

A square has 1D lines for sides.
A cube has 2D squares for sides.
A hypercube has 3D cubes for sides.
#278 - grandmabetty (11/21/2012) [-]
Comment Picture
#236 - jcomer (11/21/2012) [-]
Comment Picture
#214 - justthisonceiguess (11/21/2012) [-]
Tesseract, you say?
#291 - Rukioish (11/21/2012) [-]
Keep your crazy science fiction shapes out of my life, I can barely comprehend 3-d.
#203 - thedustlord (11/21/2012) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #15 - onceman ONLINE (11/21/2012) [-]
This is is probably the closest depiction of a tesseract we will see for a long time.
[ 265 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)