Jump to content

Is it mathematically correct to call a sphere the 3-d equivalent of a circle?


Hypercube

Recommended Posts

I think that a circle is all the points at a given distance ® from the origin. In 1 dimension it's a bit meaningless but x^2 =r^2 works (2 points at + and - r)

In a plane you get a circle x^2 + y^2 =r^2.

A sphere has x^2 + y^2 + z^2 =r^2

 

I's even go on to speculate that in 4D you would need to add w^2 as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

You guys are making a discussion out of nothing. The call a circle a circle and a sphere a sphere. A cube a cube, and a square a square. they would relate their names if they really wanted you to know the relation. Want another problem take a Pryamid and Triangle, what about those?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys are making a discussion out of nothing.
That is, largely, the point of maths.
they would relate their names if they really wanted you to know the relation.
"They" would, would "they?". Well if "they" are going to be so helpful when crafting the English language (which I assume is "their" job), then why doesn't the word 'brick' share more with the word 'clay'?
Want another problem take a [pyramid] and Triangle, what about those?
What about them? A pyramid is not the 3D analogue of a triangle, if that's what you're asking.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The [pyramid] was just another thing to keep you guys going.
It was off topic and not particularly interesting, then.
"They" as the people [made] this load of crap.
Names, like the rest of language, form naturally over thousands of years. No-one ever sat down and gave a name to each individual shape, words come into being as they are needed and as this happens all over the world there far from being one source for the particular concoction of terms that English speakers use to use to talk about geometry.
Don't think our math is perfect.
What would perfect maths be then? What possible state could maths be aiming for?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could a sphere be more correctly described as a three dimensional point?

 

No.

 

A point is zero-dimensional.

 

The zero-sphere consists of two points, if that is what you are trying to "generalise" to 3-d.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh - this is a joke, right? (Remember that jokes are hard to smuggle through Customs).

 

not at all, learn to Fly, you`ll have X,Y and Z axis` to contend with, AKA Pitch , Roll and Yaw.

 

720 degrees of freedom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rhombic dodecahedrons..........compressed spheres .....what shape would a big bang make and what would it geometrically generate in 3d space?

Just like soap bubbles.......lots of RD's.(All things being equal).

The most elegant geometries generally encompass the Golden Section ratio.

 

Does anyone know of a G.S. inherent in the RD?

Is there a relationship between a RD and the placement of the twelve pentagons of a C60?(truncated icosahedron)

How many degrees of freedom are there in a RD?

 

You know , if the caveman who was the initial twerp who sat in the river mud and fashioned an orthogonal brick that unfortunately caught on in popularity for dwellings....well if only.............. he had sat there a litlle longer and had discovered the RD.....we would have had a far better and greater understanding of our planet energy with a far more interesting architecture to work from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.