Charlatan

I am beginning my undergraduate studies for a Masters in Social Work and am taking psychology 201. This has us studying the basic structures of the mind and my reading is leading me to questions not addressed yet within our course work.

 

Has anyone established an evolutionary benefit of the brain's neural crossover effect? Everything provides a benefit it would seem, so what theory's have been put forward for the left brain controlling the right hand and so on?

 

Also, how far down the evolutionary track does this trait go ?

 

I know that they have discovered many animals literally sleep with one eye open (dolphins, ducks) and that this has to do with hemispheric isolation. That by having both sides of the brain operate independently, one side can rest while the other side remains aware of predators. This separation provides a powerful benefit. But why the cross over?

The brain crosses over because it needs the signals to join at some point for communication based on electrical impulses, and, that means that they relay information onto the other side for synthesis and coordination, based on dual actions of using two hands at once. The information may then allow the brain's 'operating system' side to control the ohter side. Take a look at my diagram:

[left brain half]<->[right brain half]

\ /

[actions] \ / [processing]

\ /

[meeting] - makes other side of the body act aswell...

/ \

/ \

[left side] [right side]

I suggest the right half of the brain acts as if it were ram for a computer. It allows for the actions or dominant left side to use it's space to make temporary bonus processing. If the left half of your brain enacts things, then the right side should open the door for 'fresh ideas', or fresh input. We therefore need both halves to work properly.

The thing is memories are not stored in the brain, as they are electrical impulses and they will travle around the body. The brain is there to regulate a lot of impulses around the brain's area, using it to store signals and acts as a hub to relate impulses, many of them, at once.

Just a little statement, I am a creationist, so don't ask me to go into that Dawkins nonsense, please.

can any one please tell me how does tetraphenyldihydrophthalic anhydride is formed from tetraphenylcyclopentadienone and maleic anhydride in the presence of bromobenzene?? Is it a kind of a Diels Alder Reaction?? And what is the role of bromobenzene??

The formation of the new substance is from the bonding of the bodily fluids. When you combin three substances you will see a 'three fold occurance', yes I made it up! Bravo! Anyway, When you combine three fluids you will see them pan out to become one substance. If you add blood to water to oil, you will see them gather in the same area, making them, due to limited space and great pressure, the water will not be at the top, the blood will not be in the midle, and the oil will not be at the bottom. But, this is a chemical reaction, yes? If you were to take 'hydrogen' and 'benzene' and mix it with the other thing, then you would have base substances mixed with a flammable substance, you get a more flammable substance. I would hazard a guess that tetra... is also a fuel, so, when you add the fuels together...

Ok, if you combine wood, oil and coal, you will have one highly flammable substance. This is a new fuel, like throwing that plastic stuff onto a fire to make it start, yes? The result is that the fuels ignite each other, being part of the same thing, and then they make it easier for the others to ignite, pressing onto them with sustained 'ignition'.

I think I will call this formula 'The three source fuel'. Yeah...

Hello all,

 

I'm in organometallic chem right now, and this question is on our new problem set:

 

The rxn of IrCl3 with EtOH produces trans-Ir(PPh3)2(CO)Cl aka Vaska's copmlex along with 2HCL and CH4. When isotopically labeled ethanol is used (CH3CH2OH), the carbonyl ligand is fully enriched in 13-C. Provide a mechanism. Do not worry about the degree of solvation or PPh3 coordination at each step.

 

IrCl3 + 2 PPh3 ---Ethanol---> Vaska's Complex

 

I talked to my professor this afternoon, and he was somewhat helpful, but I'm still having problems. He said to remember that the starting Ir complex dissociates in polar solvent, so there would be constant ligand exchange (thus the "don't worry about PPh3 coordination"). This is some sort of solvolysis, but I can't figure out how. I think the mechanism is something involving reductive elimination.

 

Please help if you can!

The rxn of IrCl3 with EtOH produces trans-Ir(PPh3)2(CO)Cl aka Vaska's copmlex along with 2HCL and CH4. When isotopically labeled ethanol is used (CH3CH2OH), the carbonyl ligand is fully enriched in 13-C. Provide a mechanism. Do not worry about the degree of solvation or PPh3 coordination at each step.

IrCl3 + 2 PPh3 ---Ethanol---> Vaska's Complex

So here we have a problem. Let's look into my crystal ball for a moment...

OK, so you want to solve vaska's complex eh??? You want to make little yellow things then? My my my, what ambition!

So, if you want to add ethanol to something, it is actually a fossil fuel, being a melted solid. If you want to add petroleum to the things you know about, it will all get 'oiled'. Oil is a corrupting substance - it bonds with the liquids and gets basically inside them. It also goes to the bottom of the substance, so is heavier. It lightly covers the upper parts of the liquid as the carbon density there is less, so it wil be displaced there.

Ok, so you heard the rhetoric, now you want to know how and why, yes?

I guess you want to know how and why. It bonds because the liquid is quite dense, so the oil doesn;t go to the bottom. It goes yellow because it is a mixture os oil, which is black, and white liquid. What happens when you mix silver and black? Well it depends how much oil there is! But that isn't the question is it???

They bond because they are the same weight, and it only looks like they bond. This is a typical mixture, you can add all the fancy symbols you want, but the answer is that they are the same weight or carbon density. This is content based answer, unfortunatley, and there is no need for a hypothesis, yes? Write my answer on your papaer and see them say it is wrong, remember you get full marks for the answer, and the answer must make sense.

Vask's useless rubbish is more like it...

Can any one please how the HOFMANN rearrangement takes place in phthalimide ( isoindole-1,3-dione) in order to give 2-aminobenzoic acid? ( the reaction mecahanism)

Well, if you were to take the phthalimide [organ or cell] filled with chemicals, and you know the answer is to produce acid for another organ, then it would serve you well to think that the other cell gets the mixture making the acid. If you were to take the mass of the acid you would see that they produce acid, or activate acid producing glands. Acids come from yuor bile thing and that means that they must be glands inside the bile stuff. Now, if you were to produce acid you would need to have some sort of hungry cells in it. These cells eat all the stuff that is dry - carbons without a liquid coating and composed of liquids, like foods and liquids.

But to make acid you need to take bacteria mixed with salt, because they will absorb the stuff as it gets eaten, making a 'dual destroyer'!

If we were to apply vectors in maths and biological stuffies and economics - things they would not work out well - then they never go beyond diagrams. Use a vector in maths? Up that! You see you would need to use the specific vector to add up to a object, never used in calculations, as it is dependant on the other vectors, so, you will be working with at least two of them, probably three.

To see the stuff that you talk of requires three vectors, except for diagrams, which only need two. This must, yes, must, mean that they will be exactly the same as the other vectors in the formula making up the carbon density or whatever. If they were to exist call them length, depth or width. But halt your beating heart, they are called vectors and include some stuff you could mess up with the formula. Great Stuff...

I say we call it what it is and forget about the vectors. If there was another name for the symbol 3, then it would be more complicated as it reqquires a new formula, not one plus two or something.

Now, if we were to take the dimensions we could find the answer quickly. I have no idea what a vector formula is, but it is far more complicated and leads to more room for error and less understanding.

So, if you were to eleiminate the vectors and recast the formula, it would be better. You need three vecotrs, and they are presented by simple formula. If you were to use three vectors, and you have mass, then carbon density, you could do it quicker, guaranteed. Stuff vectors!

If we are going to go futher we need to tie our wrists together and grab some small knives with our other hands... Yeah!

Dissolving brains with ingested or injected chemicals, of course.

the catch is that these things usually have undesirable side effects. You must factor that in with utility calculation

You are not wrong there. No buts.

If we take away from a computer excess matter, and halve the processing area, will it still work? Killing brain cells is something that smokers do too. If you can kill one cell, you can kill many, you can kill eighty percent of them and still have a lot of ram to use.

Engineering then, if you halve the space of an engine it will not stop functioning electrical impulses, in fact it will be easier for the nervous system to function in a confined lessened space.

If you were to compare a baby sea urchin to a bigger one, they both work?

Some people are fat. To get thin they need to burn the fat. If they were to devour spices that are hot, they burn the fatty cells off. You need to eat spices and curry, lots of curry. If you are on a pill that makes you gain weight you could eat even more of it! Reccommend the curry though, how many fat Hindis have you seen?

Just to point it out, applied maths does extend beyond physics. Vector calculus is an important element of quantitative biology, biochemistry and even economics. (not that mathematics needs to be applied in order to be worthy of study)

Don't goad me into a rebuttal, or, could it be another dose of submission you want?

We are getting off the road.

 

If discussion goes into what we "think" may or may not be a 4d world made entirely of space, we are lost.

Here we are not able to represent clearly what our world is made of.

 

I am sure that our common representation of what we call Space, is incorrect. We represent Space as an unmovable framework, and Time as "another dimension" that allows motion. Although we know from Relativity that it is not true. We know that SpaceTime is a continuum. There are no frontiers between Space & Time. There is no unmovable framework, no frozen dimensions versus timed dimension.

 

This thread was not intented to solve the mystery of time. Only to specify some aspect of its nature.

Such as the fact that, yes Charlatan, we are observing objects in the past, but not all the objects of the past, only some of them. (here Iggy gets mad, replace the word "objects" by "events").

And then discussion went on the "object" versus "event" interpretation, so that nobody gets mad.

Next step (I expected to be at post #5, not post #235463789) should be to ask whether those "eventobjects" hidden in the past have any influence on other "eventobjects" placed upon the conic surface of our observable universe.

Because, if they have no influence, or if there is nothing "hidden in the past", that's it: discussion collapses in front of an hypothetical subject that resolves nothing.

But if they have influence, bingo.

Actually I have visualised the fourth dimension, and, it is generated on wiki. They of course got the image from my vast knowledge on the subject, but I wil let this one slide... ulp!

Hi everyone

 

I am working on my graduation project which is hovercraft, and i am using integerated system. The fan i got is 80 cm dia. and has 5 blades and the available power is 13 hp @ 3600 rpm.

 

I am sure that it is going to produce a good thrust, but here i am worried about the lift, i want a pressure of about 0.0091 bar ( gauge ), and i dont know any data about this fan, so i was asking: how can i calculate the pressure ratio of this fan in terms of power, speed, blade cross section and diameter to know if the lift will be succsesful or not.

 

I am also sure that it will produce the required flow rate, but here i am concern about the pressure.

 

please need help

Helicopter project? Oh boy oh boy! To make your air lift work you will need to applly more force to the fan than there is resistance from grvity. Gravity is what is keeping it down, so, use your abacus to work out what the pull is and then over power it related to the mass. If the mass is [x] then make the force [y] greater than the pull of gravity [z] times the mass. So, [x] + [z] needs to be about half or so [y].

Will a specific antigen initiate the response of a B and T cell so there are receptors for the same antigen in both the humoral and cell-mediated response?

Cancer cells hey? Ok, if you were to have a number, and add something to it, it could still be square rooted back to itself. If you were to take fixed values, like multiples of two, for instance, it would 'back track'.

But, this is biology, and it could send a signal and then get 'noise' [engineering... dear!] and then go back to te 'source' affecting it. Will it? Depends how much noise there is in the 'system', if not too much, yes. This is hard to define, as it is theory, but, I would say yes to all cases as there cannot be tht much noise and stil have functions. Erm...

No, not really. It's word salad. I can say without hesitation that you have not increased my understanding at all. If you can't process the information in the article, perhaps you should consider not weighing in on it.

Ok, fancy that! Please explain. Maybe you coudl be of some use after all?

I feel real time difficulty to uderstand the steriochemistry and reaction mechanisms in organic chemsitry, is there any one to give some useful tips to have understanding the sterio chemistry as well as reaction mechanisims in organic chemsitry.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

tips to understannd organic reaction mechanism and steriochemistry

You want to 'mix cells' and watch the 'reflexes'? Organs have reflexes, so that is what I call it, by the by...

So, if you were to mix cells, there would be no mixing as they both have mass of a solid form, even the liquids don't penetrate them. Cells are programmed to react with other cells through impulses and are muscles so are trained to repeat said exercises, as no organic mass is static. They work off of relationships that they develop with other cells, like a 'spasm'.

Hey guys,

 

Homework question:

 

Two exotic particles of spins 1 and 3/2 form a bound state.

a) What are the possible values of the total spin of the bound state?

 

--

 

So, I know that:

 

[math]s_{1}=3/2[/math]

[math]s_{2}=1[/math]

 

[math]S = (s_{1}+s_{2}) , (s_{1}+s_{2}-1) ... |s_{1}-s_{2}| = 5/2, 3/2, 1/2 [/math]

 

Also, 'm', is defined according to what I've read as: m=-s, -s+1,... +s

 

So in this case, m would be:

 

[math]m_{1} = -3/2, -1/2, 1/2, 3/2[/math]

 

[math]m_{2} = -1, 0, 1[/math]

 

Which is where I am getting stuck. My m1 and m2 have different number of components. When I compose the possible states, how does this work out??

 

[math] |s m> = \sum_{m1+m2=m} C_{m_{1}m_{2}m}^{s_{1}s_{2}s} |s_{1} m_{1} > | s_{2} m_{2}>[/math]

 

So I'm not sure how to proceed. I checked examples in the book, and there's one about two particles of spins 1 and 3/2, where they go at it from "the other way" (if you already know your m1 and m2). Here is what they say:

 

[math]|\frac{3}{2} \frac{1}{2}| 1 0> = \sqrt{\frac{3}{5}}|\frac{5}{2} \frac{1}{2}> + \sqrt{\frac{1}{15}}|\frac{3}{2} \frac{1}{2}> + \sqrt{\frac{1}{3}}|\frac{1}{2} \frac{1}{2}>[/math]

If you put particles of spin 3/2 and 1 in the box, and you know that the first has m1=1/2 and the second has m2=0 (so m is necessarily 1/2) and you measure the total spin, s, you could get 5/2 (wit probability 3/5), or 3/2 (with probability 1/15), or 1/2 (with probability 1/3). Again, the sum of the probabilities is 1.

In this example, though, they seem to be picking the values they want to use of m1 and m2. My question asks for all values in general. How do I pair up m1 and m2 that don't have the same number of components??

 

I'm stuck. Help!

 

~moo

The spin is one [to] one and a half, duh!

For the lulz? Why do you think that any mathematics gets done?

 

Represent anything that needs representing both in terms of magnitude and direction?

Conceeded.

You can put it everywhere in our past without us being able to see it from anywhere in the present.

 

IA the question goes a little deeper than how to read a spacetime diagram...

 

Do you belive that time is a dimension similar to space which we travel through or that our past is frozen stiff with our past selfs and everything included?

 

If we view time lika a filmstrip in a movie, then the objects either can remain frozen in all the pictures or they could travel from frame to frame, leaving old pictures empty.

 

IF objects travels through time you could not go back to Earths 'yesterday' and find 'yesterdays' Earth there, instead you would find an empty location since the Earth had moved on towards the future and is here in the present now.

 

In such a view a spacetime diagram would only show how objects and signals moved through that episode of time and space, and not that the objects still exists in the past spacetime locations nor that the past events still continues to happen in the past.

 

I think Cap'n Refsmmat said it well in post #127:

 

What Michel seems to be asking is:

If anything changes in our past, when it already is in our past, would we be able to notice it now in the present?

and

If we leave our past empty how can we know if 'new' alien objects aren't causing 'new' events back there?

If you were to want to see an object from the past, you will. You will see images that gather on your eye lens and then you will see the history of a nano second ago.

The thing with stars and celestial bodies makes them very far away, so that nano sceond becomes quite a bit longer, as light travles at a speed, you do not see anything until it condenses on your lens. If you want to see the moon you cannot see it if it is between the earth and you. The earth rotates and that means that if you were on the other side of the earth you would see them still. Stars emit light themselves, constantly, until they burn out, so, you will see what happened a while ago.

Things happen all the time, we get it a little later, like a rerun... yeah!

I got the FAB mass spectrum of a compound synthesized by me. the technician first run the glcerine and obtained a spectra of glycerine with back ground was obtained, then solid sample firstly dissolved in chloroform and then subjected to Mass analysis by FAB ionization technique.

 

There was no any difference in the both spectras. what i should do further to have evaluation of molecular ion identification of my organic compound:-(

To make a difference you would not look at two similar things. If you were to look at two similar things then they would have the same molecules. If you were to take a liquid version of the same stuff, you would have the same stuff again if you cooled it, yes? You will have different things if it dissolved chemically, as the chloroform is inside it, so it is different. Look harder...

Here is a strange equation I found:

a=b

a^2 = ab

a^2 - b^2 = ab - b^2

(a + b)(a - b) = b(a - b)

a + b = b

(a = b)

a + a = a

2a = a

2 = 1

 

This still works, even if you substitute "a" and "b".

 

2 = 2

2^2 = 2(2)

2^2 - 2^2 = 2(2) - 2^2

(2 + 2)(2 - 2) = 2(2 - 2)

2 + 2 = 2

4 = 2

Two can equal one, but not practically. Theories about two eqaulling one is incorrect.

If a = b, and they are different, then there is aporblem with the question. It is false! If one thing equals another, they are just dirrent names. Peter is Paul, for example. That could come from an alias of second name, so, you could say anything and put a question mark behind it!

Yes two can equal one, but not pyhsically. Two is a name of something, but, in computer language they cannot be the same. Computer's work off of binary, or, mathematical processors [although Isuggested science based ones], and they will be on or off. One set cannot equal a different set.

You have completely lost me.

 

If you have any doubts about the usefulness of vectors then just pick up any book on kinematics or dynamics for example.

Yes, that would be mixtures of them, like chemsitry, you need two to have a mixture, and anything by itself does not interact with anything. The problem is that vectors are artificial. If you were to look at a painting, that is two vectors, or square vectors.

If you were, by chance, a real long shot here, to take a dimension, can you exist in the first dimension? Second dimension? Yes we can make a two dimensional image, but that has depth whtether we agree or not, but really, we live in a three dimensional world, yes? Now we getting dangerous! If we were to take a image on a monitor, it also has three dimensions, as with out depth it would not exist, yes?

Ok, there is such a thing as a vector, but it cannot exist by itself. Seeig as how it cannot exist by itself there must be more ot than that. Single vectors can be shown, but they do not exist. Think of dimensions, they are all over the place interwoven with everything that we see or touch, even hear.

Now copmes the nitty gritty, how about sonics? They have one dimension, yes? If they were to have force pressed onto a object, they will react. If they were to effect reactions, they must exist, but, how many dimensions do they have? Only one! The have energy composed of one vecor multiplying outwards, and then they influence the rest of the carbons. Seeing as they effect carbons, but have no length, depth nor width, they simply are single vectors multiplied outwards by themselves.

Oh boy, where am I?

So, if we take a vector and multiply it by itself it is no longer a 'single celled' vector, but it is only one dimensional, as it has none of the physical things, but relays force.

Now, if you wanted to make a vector weapon, you would have to use sound, making it a sonic weapon. Army dealt with, bloody warmonger! If you were to use vectors in engineering you would be using sounds. Sounds make up matter and then they bond. This means you could make a cup of coffee out of sounds... I hope!

Then if you were to take sounds and bond them into carbons, it would require different sounds, so carbon bonding is like chemistry, sort of. If you were to look at matter it would leave it to the vectors, which in their simplest form are sounds, being non dimensional, yet existing. They relay force, but this is not physicalism, it is more like... well... psionics?

Now, if you were to take the energy, all carbons are made out of 'energy' that is 'static', compounds are made of 'static energy' that have bonded. So, seeing as how sounds is energy that is 'fluid', you could trap the sounds inside a container and give them 'substance' by cooling it, as it is energy and energy is heat based. If you were to condence it you would have lots of options for using it, by capturing it. If you were to capture it by reflecting it, you could take a material that is sound resistant, maybe a three vector object, and then apply the vector to it, making it a four dimesnional object?

That would mean that we can observe the fourth dimension, or a lucid third dimension, by applying a 'one dimensional force' onto a three dimensional object, yes?

The only single vector thingies are sounds, or you show me how?

I don't know what charlatan was babbling on about, triclino. [math]\partial W = \vec F \cdot d\vec l[/math] is correct. The only difference between what you wrote in the OP and what I just wrote about is that I am explicitly showing that [math]\vec F[/math] and [math]d\vec l[/math] are vectors.

Look here you crafty old wizard, if they both vectors the they don't have any influence in the real world or they go through lasers. Why calculate vectors? What can they do? If there are three of them, then they exist, if not...

The article mentions entanglement only in passing, as a phenomenon that is superluminal. Which is misleading, but they never claim the computation scheme uses it.

Ok smarty pants, whatever you say... I cannot process a word fo this stuff!, but I will decode it for you no problem...

Quantumn entanglement is caused by cross talk between the waves. If there was a bit of cross talk you could use fibre optics insulated in a grains of sand insulator, like about three centimetres thick.

But yuo want to use it for communication? Thatis a good notion I must say! If you were to prepare the communication by making it all 'coherent' you could have a lot of corssed lines and see it work. This would need you to make each wave, electronically, communicate with each other on the same format. If you were to write a format that includes all things into it it would work, but, that would take time and money, so...

If you were to use quantaumn entanglement to regulate the communication, I suggest you take the 'cross communication' and bring it closer together and then it will be compressed and fully interwoven so it will wokr better, eventually entangling like a rope made out of coiling it together.

I hope that helps you, and please tell me if I am on the wrong track...

Hey hey hey! I have finally arrived! Please stop clapping. Huh? Oh man, I was just joking! I hope you all like me, otherwise I will... yeah!

If we were to take a thirteen year old, we could make them stronger and more intellgent. If we were to stick them full of chemicals for this, they would, during thier peak growing times - while they are still developing into people, inject them wih stuffies to make them 'better'.

==========================================================

Physical muscular growth

==========================================================

We could do this by taking muscle mass and fidning what makes it the way it is, or, stimulating muscular mass by adding growth hormones to it - like steroids, but it would be legal as long as everyone does it, or, if laws are changed to make it easier to do.

We could do this by orally administering a pill that stimulates the muscles and makes them bigger. This could be done by giving out a pill that settles on cells and makes them 'bigger' or expands them, making the cells themselves 'bigger'. It would make everything inside the peson bigger too, so it could be a growth hormone, that makes everything grow more, or, we could take the foods that make muscles grow, without exercise even, bigger. We could take the growth hornome and break it down into major parts, and then grow them in tubes or something to make them work faster. Easy access baby!

==========================================================

Mental stimulation

==========================================================

We could take the nervous system and make it better electrically and impulse wise by jacking the brain up with fibre optics, as they conduct the mental impulses better. Of course that would require surgery, so that is off the table completely.

Or, we could take the brain itself and see what we could do with it. If we were to take the brain itself, it would travle faster if there was an ideal pathway to travel along. We only use ten percent of our brains, so, we could kill eighty percent of the brain mass and make it simpler to use, much easier to regulate or process information.

In a certain book i read and i quote :

 

"As in mechanics this work is defined by the integral.

 

 

W = [math]\int F.dl[/math].

 

where F is the component of the force acting in the direction of the displacement dl.In a differential form this equation is written.

 

 

δW = F.dl.

 

where δW represents a differential quantity of work"

 

Is that correct??

The integral is supposed to be the interconnecting thing between the two components. Seeing as how there is a problem, there must be a reltionship, or break down between the two, or three, and so forth, things.

The relationship is based on them being related to the problem. The problem is of coure that they need to be 'defined', first as wha they are, and then what they do together.

So, if you have two thingies that go together, and they react, te equation will show how they interact. If there was a reaction you will find it by using your 'mytical mathematics' on it. I cannot understand the 'tech', but common sense says that they need to mathematically react, leading to a physical problem.

But that isn't the problem. Your problem is that you want to find the the amount of force if you have the displacement, or, the displacement if you have the force. You could get iether with a practical experiment, so, if your exam leaves them out, please point out that for a real problem in life you would have the information on hand, and wouldn't need this poopy question.

Now, in real life, something that teachers and exam plotters don't use, you could say that the only thing you need maths for is planning a structure or a tool, maybe an engine, excsetera excetera... If you had all the stuff on hand then why do you need maths? Planning! So, if you have a practical with all the information, you should have both values on hand, leading to a definite sum. In real life they don't take chances, you test a component until it breaks, and so forth. You do not sit and guess what it might do! People could die or something!!!

So paper work is useless. All you need is like sixth grade maths or something. This stuff they feed you is rubbish! Practical rules, write the bloody information down for goodness sakes! Architecture and engineering is all you need that maths bull for, how does it help you in medicine, for example???

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The intergral is related to the force, yes, but it also makes the real world on paper. Planning what you think should happen still requires a test. In your exams you will provide blue prints for the real world. If you were to plan ahead you would find that it needs to be able to go into a cube formula for architecture and engineering, in other words three as a common denominator. If it does it works, if not it doesn't work. I suggest the number three because that is cubed, meaning it has the three dimensions and can physically exist. If it doesn;t go into three, it cannot exist, as the real world is based on the number three, not two, not vectors, and not four dimensions niether.

So tell your teacher that it needs to go into three if they are having problems marking this sort of stuff.