4D - The next big thing? People have sucessfully made 4-Dimensional Geometry
  2 / 3    
Neural interface, allowing us to make complex character movements would be nice.
Neural interface, allowing us to make complex character movements would be nice.

46" Samsung ES7500 3DTV (checkerboard, high FOV as desktop monitor, highly recommend!) - Metro 2033 3D PNG screens - Metro LL filter realism mod - Flugan's Deus Ex:HR Depth changers - Nvidia tech support online form - Nvidia support: 1-800-797-6530

#16
Posted 12/12/2011 10:38 PM   
[quote name='supcaj' date='12 December 2011 - 08:56 PM' timestamp='1323723410' post='1341359']
No, you hilariously don't, or you wouldn't be asking questions as utterly meaningless and nonsensical as "Is 4D the next big thing". That's like asking "are X-rays the next big thing in gaming?!" Well, uhhhh, I guess x-rays are like a real thing and stuff, but we obviously have no way to perceive them, so how would that add to the value of any sort of multimedia experience? ....and wait, aren't we in a forum about stereoscopic gaming?!
[/quote]

He's right, 3rd dimensions and 4th dimensions are complete different planes of existance. It's an impossibility.
[quote name='supcaj' date='12 December 2011 - 08:56 PM' timestamp='1323723410' post='1341359']

No, you hilariously don't, or you wouldn't be asking questions as utterly meaningless and nonsensical as "Is 4D the next big thing". That's like asking "are X-rays the next big thing in gaming?!" Well, uhhhh, I guess x-rays are like a real thing and stuff, but we obviously have no way to perceive them, so how would that add to the value of any sort of multimedia experience? ....and wait, aren't we in a forum about stereoscopic gaming?!





He's right, 3rd dimensions and 4th dimensions are complete different planes of existance. It's an impossibility.

#17
Posted 12/12/2011 11:48 PM   
So that explains where all these arrows to the knee have been coming from ... the 4th dimension! It's an epidemic!


... there's no escaping it. /tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':tongue:' />
So that explains where all these arrows to the knee have been coming from ... the 4th dimension! It's an epidemic!





... there's no escaping it. /tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':tongue:' />

#18
Posted 12/12/2011 11:56 PM   
[i] a[/i][quote name='cybereality' date='11 December 2011 - 08:01 PM' timestamp='1323655284' post='1340965']
I'd much rather the kind of 4-D they have at amusement parks parks, like with hydrolic seats and fans that blow air and water in your face.
[/quote]

That isn't true 4D. Besides, Water and Electronics don't mix. The Air and Hydraulics might be achieveable though.

Oh god, I hope someone doesn't invent Smell-o-Vision...


[quote name='supcaj' date='12 December 2011 - 02:56 PM' timestamp='1323723410' post='1341359']
No, you hilariously don't, or you wouldn't be asking questions as utterly meaningless and nonsensical as "Is 4D the next big thing". That's like asking "are X-rays the next big thing in gaming?!" Well, uhhhh, I guess x-rays are like a real thing and stuff, but we obviously have no way to perceive them, so how would that add to the value of any sort of multimedia experience? ....and wait, aren't we in a forum about stereoscopic gaming?!
[/quote]

*BUZZER* You're Oblivious./dry.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':dry:' />

I was asking if 4D was the next big thing in gaming because people have already attempted to apply 4D in games and applications. And our Universe [i]is[/i] an Infinite-Dimension Universe. We just can't perceive all of them. I guess God thought it would make our lives too complicated if we could perceive more than a certain number of dimensions.
a[quote name='cybereality' date='11 December 2011 - 08:01 PM' timestamp='1323655284' post='1340965']

I'd much rather the kind of 4-D they have at amusement parks parks, like with hydrolic seats and fans that blow air and water in your face.





That isn't true 4D. Besides, Water and Electronics don't mix. The Air and Hydraulics might be achieveable though.



Oh god, I hope someone doesn't invent Smell-o-Vision...





[quote name='supcaj' date='12 December 2011 - 02:56 PM' timestamp='1323723410' post='1341359']

No, you hilariously don't, or you wouldn't be asking questions as utterly meaningless and nonsensical as "Is 4D the next big thing". That's like asking "are X-rays the next big thing in gaming?!" Well, uhhhh, I guess x-rays are like a real thing and stuff, but we obviously have no way to perceive them, so how would that add to the value of any sort of multimedia experience? ....and wait, aren't we in a forum about stereoscopic gaming?!





*BUZZER* You're Oblivious./dry.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':dry:' />



I was asking if 4D was the next big thing in gaming because people have already attempted to apply 4D in games and applications. And our Universe is an Infinite-Dimension Universe. We just can't perceive all of them. I guess God thought it would make our lives too complicated if we could perceive more than a certain number of dimensions.

Oh, it feels so right to dream under the stars
Where a part of me is free to roam where I belong!

#19
Posted 12/13/2011 02:20 AM   
Wow, I like this kind of things.
But, 4D isnt next big thing without some future 4D-directicly-to-brain-prosessor, cause human brain dont get it. Like those youtube videos, its very unclear what happens.
Robots will evolve, and skynet!
Wow, I like this kind of things.

But, 4D isnt next big thing without some future 4D-directicly-to-brain-prosessor, cause human brain dont get it. Like those youtube videos, its very unclear what happens.

Robots will evolve, and skynet!

Windows 7 Pro 64-bit, i7 950, ASUS P6X58C-E, GTX 480

#20
Posted 12/13/2011 02:20 AM   
I remember an article in Dragon magazine back about a century ago (when geeks just read books and played AD&D) that talked about a dungeon set in a tesseract. It can definitely be done.

Say you had a game with 2D faces on pieces of paper being your characters and these characters were placed on a cube. If the character leaves the square it's on (goes over the edge of the cube) then the character is simply stuck to the side of the cube. From the character's perspective, he will start in one square, touch one of the sides of the square, and end up in a new square.

Now up that one dimension and have the game be on a tesseract. Your character starts in a cube. When the character touches any of the walls (including the floor - so these characters had better be able to fly), the character pops up in another cube.

You could play quite a mind bending game of tag in such a game. Gravity would sure have to get... interesting.

3D Vision would be of no particular relevance, though, so I've got no idea what the OP is trying to ask.
I remember an article in Dragon magazine back about a century ago (when geeks just read books and played AD&D) that talked about a dungeon set in a tesseract. It can definitely be done.



Say you had a game with 2D faces on pieces of paper being your characters and these characters were placed on a cube. If the character leaves the square it's on (goes over the edge of the cube) then the character is simply stuck to the side of the cube. From the character's perspective, he will start in one square, touch one of the sides of the square, and end up in a new square.



Now up that one dimension and have the game be on a tesseract. Your character starts in a cube. When the character touches any of the walls (including the floor - so these characters had better be able to fly), the character pops up in another cube.



You could play quite a mind bending game of tag in such a game. Gravity would sure have to get... interesting.



3D Vision would be of no particular relevance, though, so I've got no idea what the OP is trying to ask.

#21
Posted 12/13/2011 03:01 AM   
you guys are all wrong.... all of you!!!

We are using stereoscopic glasses...

AND we have two eyes...

2 (lenses) + 2 (eyes) = 4D

without the glasses, we see in 2D because we have two eyes.
you guys are all wrong.... all of you!!!



We are using stereoscopic glasses...



AND we have two eyes...



2 (lenses) + 2 (eyes) = 4D



without the glasses, we see in 2D because we have two eyes.

#22
Posted 12/13/2011 03:59 AM   
[quote name='I_MaLa_MeR' date='12 December 2011 - 09:59 PM' timestamp='1323748749' post='1341570']
you guys are all wrong.... all of you!!!

We are using stereoscopic glasses...

AND we have two eyes...

2 (lenses) + 2 (eyes) = 4D

without the glasses, we see in 2D because we have two eyes.
[/quote]

Think again.

Close one eye, notice how you can see Height and Width (2D). Open both eyes, you can see Depth (3D) as well.But not on the screen because the screen displays a 2D Image. Put on the glasses however, your eyes see depth because you are 'properly' using both of them two see two slightly different images instead of the same image. The reason you can still tell how far away something is with one eye closed is because of perspective.

[quote name='Zloth' date='12 December 2011 - 09:01 PM' timestamp='1323745300' post='1341557']
3D Vision would be of no particular relevance, though, so I've got no idea what the OP is trying to ask.
[/quote]

For one thing, it would make it easier to see the 3rd Dimension on-screen, thus making it slightly easier to see the 4th.

--- Fun Fact ---

In an alternate universe, 4-Dimensional Beings are having this exact conversation, except about 5-D Geometry instead of 4-D Geometry.
[quote name='I_MaLa_MeR' date='12 December 2011 - 09:59 PM' timestamp='1323748749' post='1341570']

you guys are all wrong.... all of you!!!



We are using stereoscopic glasses...



AND we have two eyes...



2 (lenses) + 2 (eyes) = 4D



without the glasses, we see in 2D because we have two eyes.





Think again.



Close one eye, notice how you can see Height and Width (2D). Open both eyes, you can see Depth (3D) as well.But not on the screen because the screen displays a 2D Image. Put on the glasses however, your eyes see depth because you are 'properly' using both of them two see two slightly different images instead of the same image. The reason you can still tell how far away something is with one eye closed is because of perspective.



[quote name='Zloth' date='12 December 2011 - 09:01 PM' timestamp='1323745300' post='1341557']

3D Vision would be of no particular relevance, though, so I've got no idea what the OP is trying to ask.





For one thing, it would make it easier to see the 3rd Dimension on-screen, thus making it slightly easier to see the 4th.



--- Fun Fact ---



In an alternate universe, 4-Dimensional Beings are having this exact conversation, except about 5-D Geometry instead of 4-D Geometry.

Oh, it feels so right to dream under the stars
Where a part of me is free to roam where I belong!

#23
Posted 12/13/2011 04:33 AM   
[quote name='Amaroq Dricaldari' date='12 December 2011 - 10:33 PM' timestamp='1323750784' post='1341585']
--- Fun Fact ---

In an alternate universe, 4-Dimensional Beings are having this exact conversation, except about 5-D Geometry instead of 4-D Geometry.
[/quote]

You're not understanding what the basic principles of [font=sans-serif][size=2]Euclidean space.[/size][/font]
[font=sans-serif][size=2]
[/size][/font]
[font=sans-serif][size=2]--A set of two arrays is visually depicted as a table with x and y coordinates[/size][/font]
[font=sans-serif][size=2]--A set of three arrays is visually depicted as a cube with x, y and z coordinates[/size][/font]
[font="sans-serif"][size="2"]
[/size][/font]
[font="sans-serif"][size="2"]In [/size][/font][font=sans-serif][size=2]Euclidean space human perception ends here, but mathematically there are needs for further numbers of arrays adding additional coordinates:[/size][/font]
[font=sans-serif][size=2]
[/size][/font]
[font=sans-serif][size=2]--A set of four arrays with x, y, z and w coordinates requires translation into the human perceptible [/size][/font][font=sans-serif][size=2]Euclidean[/size][/font][font=sans-serif][size=2] dimensions --enter the tesseract.[/size][/font]
[font=sans-serif][size=2]--A set of 5 arrays with w, x, y, z and v coordinates [/size][/font][font=sans-serif][size=2]requires translation into the human perceptible [/size][/font][font=sans-serif][size=2]Euclidean[/size][/font][font=sans-serif][size=2] dimensions --enter the 5-cube.[/size][/font]
[font=sans-serif][size=2]
[/size][/font]
[font="sans-serif"][size="2"]This pattern can continue onward indefinitely and you can also fill arrays with arrays. If you aren't keeping up with the math it's convoluted, but if you quit trying to visualize it and just deal with the numbers [/size][/font][font=sans-serif][size=2]Euclidean space is fairly simple.[/size][/font]
[quote name='Amaroq Dricaldari' date='12 December 2011 - 10:33 PM' timestamp='1323750784' post='1341585']

--- Fun Fact ---



In an alternate universe, 4-Dimensional Beings are having this exact conversation, except about 5-D Geometry instead of 4-D Geometry.





You're not understanding what the basic principles of [font=sans-serif]Euclidean space.[/font]

[font=sans-serif]

[/font]

[font=sans-serif]--A set of two arrays is visually depicted as a table with x and y coordinates[/font]

[font=sans-serif]--A set of three arrays is visually depicted as a cube with x, y and z coordinates[/font]





In [font=sans-serif]Euclidean space human perception ends here, but mathematically there are needs for further numbers of arrays adding additional coordinates:[/font]

[font=sans-serif]

[/font]

[font=sans-serif]--A set of four arrays with x, y, z and w coordinates requires translation into the human perceptible [/font][font=sans-serif]Euclidean[/font][font=sans-serif] dimensions --enter the tesseract.[/font]

[font=sans-serif]--A set of 5 arrays with w, x, y, z and v coordinates [/font][font=sans-serif]requires translation into the human perceptible [/font][font=sans-serif]Euclidean[/font][font=sans-serif] dimensions --enter the 5-cube.[/font]

[font=sans-serif]

[/font]

This pattern can continue onward indefinitely and you can also fill arrays with arrays. If you aren't keeping up with the math it's convoluted, but if you quit trying to visualize it and just deal with the numbers [font=sans-serif]Euclidean space is fairly simple.[/font]

Done.

#24
Posted 12/13/2011 10:59 AM   
[quote name='I_MaLa_MeR' date='13 December 2011 - 05:59 AM' timestamp='1323748749' post='1341570']
you guys are all wrong.... all of you!!!

We are using stereoscopic glasses...

AND we have two eyes...

2 (lenses) + 2 (eyes) = 4D

without the glasses, we see in 2D because we have two eyes.
[/quote]
/rofl.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':rofl:' /> Nice one! /rofl.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':rofl:' />
[quote name='I_MaLa_MeR' date='13 December 2011 - 05:59 AM' timestamp='1323748749' post='1341570']

you guys are all wrong.... all of you!!!



We are using stereoscopic glasses...



AND we have two eyes...



2 (lenses) + 2 (eyes) = 4D



without the glasses, we see in 2D because we have two eyes.



/rofl.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':rofl:' /> Nice one! /rofl.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':rofl:' />

Windows 7 Pro 64-bit, i7 950, ASUS P6X58C-E, GTX 480

#25
Posted 12/13/2011 03:33 PM   
[quote]For one thing, it would make it easier to see the 3rd Dimension on-screen, thus making it slightly easier to see the 4th.[/quote]
No, it doesn't. You can't see in that direction because you can't point your eyes that way. Even if you did, you still wouldn't see 4D because your brain won't have anything like a clue how to process the information.

Where is Carl Sagan when you need him? Oh wait, he's on [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnURElCzGc0]YouTube[/url]!
For one thing, it would make it easier to see the 3rd Dimension on-screen, thus making it slightly easier to see the 4th.


No, it doesn't. You can't see in that direction because you can't point your eyes that way. Even if you did, you still wouldn't see 4D because your brain won't have anything like a clue how to process the information.



Where is Carl Sagan when you need him? Oh wait, he's on " rel="nofollow" target = "_blank">YouTube!

#26
Posted 12/14/2011 01:04 AM   
[quote name='Zloth' date='13 December 2011 - 07:04 PM' timestamp='1323824678' post='1342000']
No, it doesn't. You can't see in that direction because you can't point your eyes that way. Even if you did, you still wouldn't see 4D because your brain won't have anything like a clue how to process the information.

Where is Carl Sagan when you need him? Oh wait, he's on [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnURElCzGc0"]YouTube[/url]!
[/quote]

Just out of curuiosity...

If the universe has infinite dimensions, then why do you think we can only perceive 3 of them? I mean, I am perfectly happy with 3 dimensions. It seems to be enough. But what if objects were 4-Dimensional? What if we could percieve the 4th Dimension? It would be so awesome. It seems such a waste to only use 3 Dimensions when there are at least 8, if not higher, or even infinite.

Maybe someone is writing a book about how to train your brain to perceive the 4th Dimension. Once you know what the 4th Dimension looks like, you might be able to find ways to use the 4th Dimension.
[quote name='Zloth' date='13 December 2011 - 07:04 PM' timestamp='1323824678' post='1342000']

No, it doesn't. You can't see in that direction because you can't point your eyes that way. Even if you did, you still wouldn't see 4D because your brain won't have anything like a clue how to process the information.



Where is Carl Sagan when you need him? Oh wait, he's on " rel="nofollow" target = "_blank">YouTube!





Just out of curuiosity...



If the universe has infinite dimensions, then why do you think we can only perceive 3 of them? I mean, I am perfectly happy with 3 dimensions. It seems to be enough. But what if objects were 4-Dimensional? What if we could percieve the 4th Dimension? It would be so awesome. It seems such a waste to only use 3 Dimensions when there are at least 8, if not higher, or even infinite.



Maybe someone is writing a book about how to train your brain to perceive the 4th Dimension. Once you know what the 4th Dimension looks like, you might be able to find ways to use the 4th Dimension.

Oh, it feels so right to dream under the stars
Where a part of me is free to roam where I belong!

#27
Posted 12/14/2011 11:11 PM   
[quote name='Amaroq Dricaldari' date='14 December 2011 - 06:11 PM' timestamp='1323904273' post='1342390']
Just out of curuiosity...

If the universe has infinite dimensions, then why do you think we can only perceive 3 of them? I mean, I am perfectly happy with 3 dimensions. It seems to be enough. But what if objects were 4-Dimensional? What if we could percieve the 4th Dimension? It would be so awesome. It seems such a waste to only use 3 Dimensions when there are at least 8, if not higher, or even infinite.

Maybe someone is writing a book about how to train your brain to perceive the 4th Dimension. Once you know what the 4th Dimension looks like, you might be able to find ways to use the 4th Dimension.
[/quote]

Why do you assume there are infinite dimensions in the universe? I get the feeling you're trying to comprehend a topic that's way over your head. Do you understand what a "dimension" is? There are no 4 dimensional objects floating in our world just "waiting" for us to discover it. Even if our 3 dimensional world is embedded in a higher 4th spacial dimension, there would be absolutely no way for us to ever percieve it. In fact, stop trying to perceive it. Learn to manipulate it mathematically and it'll all suddenly become clear. Then you'll truly understand those very tesseract links you posted rather than make statements that show an utter lack of understanding (no offense).
[quote name='Amaroq Dricaldari' date='14 December 2011 - 06:11 PM' timestamp='1323904273' post='1342390']

Just out of curuiosity...



If the universe has infinite dimensions, then why do you think we can only perceive 3 of them? I mean, I am perfectly happy with 3 dimensions. It seems to be enough. But what if objects were 4-Dimensional? What if we could percieve the 4th Dimension? It would be so awesome. It seems such a waste to only use 3 Dimensions when there are at least 8, if not higher, or even infinite.



Maybe someone is writing a book about how to train your brain to perceive the 4th Dimension. Once you know what the 4th Dimension looks like, you might be able to find ways to use the 4th Dimension.





Why do you assume there are infinite dimensions in the universe? I get the feeling you're trying to comprehend a topic that's way over your head. Do you understand what a "dimension" is? There are no 4 dimensional objects floating in our world just "waiting" for us to discover it. Even if our 3 dimensional world is embedded in a higher 4th spacial dimension, there would be absolutely no way for us to ever percieve it. In fact, stop trying to perceive it. Learn to manipulate it mathematically and it'll all suddenly become clear. Then you'll truly understand those very tesseract links you posted rather than make statements that show an utter lack of understanding (no offense).

PC Console

Thermaltake Lanbox Lite

Sandy Bridge Core i5 2500

MSI mATX H67 /w 4GB DDR3

Gigabyte GTX 570 OC (780Mhz)

46" Samsung 240hz LED 3DTV

Nvidia 3DTV Play / IZ3D / Tridef (yes all 3!)

Logitech wireless keyboard/mouse

Wireless XBox 360 controller

#28
Posted 12/15/2011 02:50 AM   
[quote name='Amaroq Dricaldari' date='14 December 2011 - 05:11 PM' timestamp='1323904273' post='1342390']
Just out of curuiosity...

If the universe has infinite dimensions, then why do you think we can only perceive 3 of them? I mean, I am perfectly happy with 3 dimensions. It seems to be enough. But what if objects were 4-Dimensional? What if we could percieve the 4th Dimension? It would be so awesome. It seems such a waste to only use 3 Dimensions when there are at least 8, if not higher, or even infinite.

Maybe someone is writing a book about how to train your brain to perceive the 4th Dimension. Once you know what the 4th Dimension looks like, you might be able to find ways to use the 4th Dimension.
[/quote]

[font=sans-serif][size=2]Euclidean[/size][/font][font=sans-serif][size=2] space and [/size][/font][font="sans-serif"][size="2"]Minkowski space are intrinsically different. Hypercubes are constructs of[/size][/font] [font=sans-serif][size=2]Euclidean[/size][/font][font=sans-serif][size=2] space and not[/size][/font] [font=sans-serif][size=2]Minkowski space. You need to read further.[/size][/font]
[quote name='Amaroq Dricaldari' date='14 December 2011 - 05:11 PM' timestamp='1323904273' post='1342390']

Just out of curuiosity...



If the universe has infinite dimensions, then why do you think we can only perceive 3 of them? I mean, I am perfectly happy with 3 dimensions. It seems to be enough. But what if objects were 4-Dimensional? What if we could percieve the 4th Dimension? It would be so awesome. It seems such a waste to only use 3 Dimensions when there are at least 8, if not higher, or even infinite.



Maybe someone is writing a book about how to train your brain to perceive the 4th Dimension. Once you know what the 4th Dimension looks like, you might be able to find ways to use the 4th Dimension.





[font=sans-serif]Euclidean[/font][font=sans-serif] space and [/font]Minkowski space are intrinsically different. Hypercubes are constructs of [font=sans-serif]Euclidean[/font][font=sans-serif] space and not[/font] [font=sans-serif]Minkowski space. You need to read further.[/font]

Done.

#29
Posted 12/15/2011 04:28 PM   
[quote name='D1llw33d' date='15 December 2011 - 08:28 AM' timestamp='1323966514' post='1342674']
[font=sans-serif][size=2]Euclidean[/size][/font][font=sans-serif][size=2] space and [/size][/font][font="sans-serif"][size="2"]Minkowski space are intrinsically different. Hypercubes are constructs of[/size][/font] [font=sans-serif][size=2]Euclidean[/size][/font][font=sans-serif][size=2] space and not[/size][/font] [font=sans-serif][size=2]Minkowski space. You need to read further.[/size][/font]
[/quote]

I hope there is a fourth dimension so that we can send this thread and everyone posting crap like "THE MORE Ds THE BETTER LOL" to it
[quote name='D1llw33d' date='15 December 2011 - 08:28 AM' timestamp='1323966514' post='1342674']

[font=sans-serif]Euclidean[/font][font=sans-serif] space and [/font]Minkowski space are intrinsically different. Hypercubes are constructs of [font=sans-serif]Euclidean[/font][font=sans-serif] space and not[/font] [font=sans-serif]Minkowski space. You need to read further.[/font]





I hope there is a fourth dimension so that we can send this thread and everyone posting crap like "THE MORE Ds THE BETTER LOL" to it

#30
Posted 12/15/2011 09:41 PM   
  2 / 3    
Scroll To Top