Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #586386 > unrolled thread

Re: Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from? Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-06-24 10:38 -0400
    Re: Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-06-24 10:02 -0500
      Re: Re: Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from? Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-06-25 01:29 -0400
        Re: Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-06-25 15:01 -0500
      Re: Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-06-26 01:04 -0700
    Re: Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-24 16:15 +0000
      Re: Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-06-24 17:24 -0400
        Re: Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-24 22:03 +0000
          Re: Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-06-24 18:25 -0400
            Re: Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-24 22:44 +0000
      Re: Re: Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from? Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-06-25 01:33 -0400
        Re: Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-25 15:44 +0000
          Re: Re: Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from? Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-06-26 15:34 -0400
            Re: Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-06-27 09:06 -0500
    Re: Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from? ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-25 16:45 -0500
      Re: Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-25 22:44 +0000
        Re: Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-06-25 16:10 -0700
        Re: Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from? ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-25 18:25 -0500
          Re: Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-06-25 21:08 -0500
            Re: Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from? ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-25 21:58 -0500
            TripolarS from ... wTf are you from, any way noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-06-26 16:53 -0700
              Re: TripolarS from ... wTf are you from, any way noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-06-26 21:10 -0700
          Re: Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-26 02:04 +0000
            Re: Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from? ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-25 22:28 -0500
              Re: Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-26 04:49 +0000
                Re: Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from? ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-26 11:23 -0500
                  Re: Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-26 17:33 +0000
                    Re: Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from? ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-26 13:13 -0500

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#586386 — Re: Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from?

On 8 May 2016 11:47:41 GMT, 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> wrote:

>Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from?
...

I recently considered that maybe the three dimensions are just human
(Descarte) made mathematical constructs.

We could easily number all locations in a cubical area with one
coordinate starting at top left, near and progressing to bottom, right
, far.

Granted it would require revamping a lot of our mathematics (e.g. the
distance formula), but it seems it would be just as valid as the
cartesian coordinates we now use.




---------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Strickland			Reston, VA
---------------------------------------------------

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#586387

On 6/24/2016 9:38 AM, Michael J. Strickland wrote:
> On 8 May 2016 11:47:41 GMT, 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
>
>> Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from?
> ...
>
> I recently considered that maybe the three dimensions are just human
> (Descarte) made mathematical constructs.

> We could easily number all locations in a cubical area with one
> coordinate starting at top left, near and progressing to bottom, right
> , far.

> Granted it would require revamping a lot of our mathematics (e.g. the
> distance formula), but it seems it would be just as valid as the
> cartesian coordinates we now use.
>


you can switch from that old x,y,z system to modern Cylindrical 
coordinate system, or Spherical coordinate system simply using 
translation, no problem.

why put up with plain old 3 distances, when you can have 2 angles and a 
distance ?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586535

On Fri, 24 Jun 2016 10:02:34 -0500, Sergio <invalid@invalid.com>
wrote:

>On 6/24/2016 9:38 AM, Michael J. Strickland wrote:
>> On 8 May 2016 11:47:41 GMT, 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from?
>> ...
>>
>> I recently considered that maybe the three dimensions are just human
>> (Descarte) made mathematical constructs.
>
>> We could easily number all locations in a cubical area with one
>> coordinate starting at top left, near and progressing to bottom, right
>> , far.
>
>> Granted it would require revamping a lot of our mathematics (e.g. the
>> distance formula), but it seems it would be just as valid as the
>> cartesian coordinates we now use.
>>
>
>
>you can switch from that old x,y,z system to modern Cylindrical 
>coordinate system, or Spherical coordinate system simply using 
>translation, no problem.
>
>why put up with plain old 3 distances, when you can have 2 angles and a 
>distance ?

I could say why put up with 2 angles and a distance when you can have
just a single scalar location. For instance, a 3x3x3 cubical space
could just have its locations numbered 1 to 27.

Mike
---------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Strickland			Reston, VA
---------------------------------------------------

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586661

On 6/25/2016 12:29 AM, Michael J. Strickland wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2016 10:02:34 -0500, Sergio <invalid@invalid.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 6/24/2016 9:38 AM, Michael J. Strickland wrote:
>>> On 8 May 2016 11:47:41 GMT, 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> wrote:

>>>> Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from?
>>> ...
>>>
>>> I recently considered that maybe the three dimensions are just human
>>> (Descarte) made mathematical constructs.
>>
>>> We could easily number all locations in a cubical area with one
>>> coordinate starting at top left, near and progressing to bottom, right
>>> , far.

>>> Granted it would require revamping a lot of our mathematics (e.g. the
>>> distance formula), but it seems it would be just as valid as the
>>> cartesian coordinates we now use.
>>>
>>
>>
>> you can switch from that old x,y,z system to modern Cylindrical
>> coordinate system, or Spherical coordinate system simply using
>> translation, no problem.
>>
>> why put up with plain old 3 distances, when you can have 2 angles and a
>> distance ?

> I could say why put up with 2 angles and a distance when you can have
> just a single scalar location. For instance, a 3x3x3 cubical space
> could just have its locations numbered 1 to 27.
>
> Mike
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Michael J. Strickland			Reston, VA
> ---------------------------------------------------
>

why count in decimal ?

use Hex, 3x3x3 cube numbered from 1 to 1B

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586755

On Friday, June 24, 2016 at 6:02:58 PM UTC+3, Sergio wrote:
> On 6/24/2016 9:38 AM, Michael J. Strickland wrote:
> > On 8 May 2016 11:47:41 GMT, 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from?
> > ...
> >
> > I recently considered that maybe the three dimensions are just human
> > (Descarte) made mathematical constructs.
> 
> > We could easily number all locations in a cubical area with one
> > coordinate starting at top left, near and progressing to bottom, right
> > , far.
> 
> > Granted it would require revamping a lot of our mathematics (e.g. the
> > distance formula), but it seems it would be just as valid as the
> > cartesian coordinates we now use.
> >
> 
> 
> you can switch from that old x,y,z system to modern Cylindrical 
> coordinate system, or Spherical coordinate system simply using 
> translation, no problem.
> 
> why put up with plain old 3 distances, when you can have 2 angles and a 
> distance ?
=============================
not enough!
may be  + -  3 direction distance
+ -  two directions of rotation ?
===================================
how about that ??
TIA
Y.Porat
============================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586394

Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 8 May 2016 11:47:41 GMT, 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
> 
>>Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from?
> ...
> 
> I recently considered that maybe the three dimensions are just human
> (Descarte) made mathematical constructs.
> 
> We could easily number all locations in a cubical area with one
> coordinate starting at top left, near and progressing to bottom, right
> , far.

I take it you never made it to high school math where things like spherical
coordinants were introduced.

 

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586408

On 6/24/2016 12:15 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 8 May 2016 11:47:41 GMT, 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from?
>> ...
>>
>> I recently considered that maybe the three dimensions are just human
>> (Descarte) made mathematical constructs.
>>
>> We could easily number all locations in a cubical area with one
>> coordinate starting at top left, near and progressing to bottom, right
>> , far.
>
> I take it you never made it to high school math where things like spherical
> coordinants were introduced.

Don't worry about jimp, high school math is all he knows.

And of course nobody here understands or answered your question. They 
were all to hot to let you know that they were aware of cylindrical and 
spherical coordinates.

First off remember that math is 100 % fantasy. 1+1 does mot always equal 
2. Hence dimensions are only mathematical constructs as you say.
But within any mathematical construct every thing is based upon some 
initial assumptions (axioms) which remain unproved. After that all 
propositions and constructs must always be self-consistent. Hence 
mathematics is in essence a language in which various relationships can 
be expressed.

So suppose we have a fantasy cubical space filled with an infinite 
number of points. We can list two of these points and construct a line 
between them and measure it's length. We are making some progress.

But the task we want to solve is how to describe ALL the points in the 
cube. Well, as you say we could pick two points on the edge and draw a 
line between them and that labels ALL the points on that line even 
though there are an infinite number of them. And then we move on to the 
next two points and do the same. In the end we could actually bend the 
line around so it's only ONE line that describes all the points in the 
cube.

But there is a problem. There are an infinite number of points in the 
cube which makes an infinite number of lines and a total line length 
that is infinite. So one ends up with infinite numbers describing points 
that are located within the finite distances inside the cube.

The Genius of Descarte was he first did the line for all the points on 
one side to the corresponding point on the opposite side of the cube. 
Even though there were an infinite number of points on those sides the 
numbers measuring the distance between the sides for any given line 
remained finite! Next he picked two more sides and did it again! And 
again it worked giving finite numbers. And then he did it again and it 
worked again! And then he did it again...and discovered that he didn't 
need to do it again! Three were enough. And any of the infinite number 
of points within the cube could be designated by just three finite 
numbers. Et Voila!

And that is the difference between your idea and that of Descarte.

But Descarte's idea isn't the only one that works. There are MANY that 
work. But in order to be like Descarte's system something special is 
needed. And that "special" thing is called orthoganality. What this 
means is that the lines you use to describe the points you are measuring 
do NOT have to be straight lines. They can be curved and formed from a 
variety of functions, But the Key thing needed to have a workable 
coordinate system is that when you change the value of one of the three 
numbers the other two do not change.

This as you note not only eliminated infinite numbers but also greatly 
simplifies things like finding the distance between two points, which is 
the great utility of the whole scheme.

Remember, however, that I am a kook who knows no science so if you need 
any further help you should ask HVAC or jimp or Boinker to explain it 
all to you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586411

benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
> On 6/24/2016 12:15 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On 8 May 2016 11:47:41 GMT, 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from?
>>> ...
>>>
>>> I recently considered that maybe the three dimensions are just human
>>> (Descarte) made mathematical constructs.
>>>
>>> We could easily number all locations in a cubical area with one
>>> coordinate starting at top left, near and progressing to bottom, right
>>> , far.
>>
>> I take it you never made it to high school math where things like spherical
>> coordinants were introduced.
> 
> Don't worry about jimp, high school math is all he knows.

I will grant I am rather rusty with partial differentials.

> And of course nobody here understands or answered your question. They 
> were all to hot to let you know that they were aware of cylindrical and 
> spherical coordinates.

Or didn't think it worth the effort to pontificate on and about the subject
when the original poster is obviously clueless.

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586414

On 6/24/2016 6:03 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>> On 6/24/2016 12:15 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On 8 May 2016 11:47:41 GMT, 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from?
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> I recently considered that maybe the three dimensions are just human
>>>> (Descarte) made mathematical constructs.
>>>>
>>>> We could easily number all locations in a cubical area with one
>>>> coordinate starting at top left, near and progressing to bottom, right
>>>> , far.
>>>
>>> I take it you never made it to high school math where things like spherical
>>> coordinants were introduced.
>>
>> Don't worry about jimp, high school math is all he knows.
>
> I will grant I am rather rusty with partial differentials.
>
>> And of course nobody here understands or answered your question. They
>> were all to hot to let you know that they were aware of cylindrical and
>> spherical coordinates.
>
> Or didn't think it worth the effort to pontificate on and about the subject
> when the original poster is obviously clueless.

Not saying you are wrong, but the problem with that is one never really 
knows ahead of time if the effort is a waste of time or not. Only time 
will tell.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586416

benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
> On 6/24/2016 6:03 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>>> On 6/24/2016 12:15 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 8 May 2016 11:47:41 GMT, 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from?
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> I recently considered that maybe the three dimensions are just human
>>>>> (Descarte) made mathematical constructs.
>>>>>
>>>>> We could easily number all locations in a cubical area with one
>>>>> coordinate starting at top left, near and progressing to bottom, right
>>>>> , far.
>>>>
>>>> I take it you never made it to high school math where things like spherical
>>>> coordinants were introduced.
>>>
>>> Don't worry about jimp, high school math is all he knows.
>>
>> I will grant I am rather rusty with partial differentials.
>>
>>> And of course nobody here understands or answered your question. They
>>> were all to hot to let you know that they were aware of cylindrical and
>>> spherical coordinates.
>>
>> Or didn't think it worth the effort to pontificate on and about the subject
>> when the original poster is obviously clueless.
> 
> Not saying you are wrong, but the problem with that is one never really 
> knows ahead of time if the effort is a waste of time or not. Only time 
> will tell.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinate_system

Complete with pictures and no typing required.
 

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586541

On Fri, 24 Jun 2016 16:15:23 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 8 May 2016 11:47:41 GMT, 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from?
>> ...
>> 
>> I recently considered that maybe the three dimensions are just human
>> (Descarte) made mathematical constructs.
>> 
>> We could easily number all locations in a cubical area with one
>> coordinate starting at top left, near and progressing to bottom, right
>> , far.
>
>I take it you never made it to high school math where things like spherical
>coordinants were introduced.
>
> 

Yes I did make it through high school (and college) math. Did you make
it through elementary school English because your reply makes me
wonder?

Mike
---------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Strickland			Reston, VA
---------------------------------------------------

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586589

Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2016 16:15:23 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> 
>>Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On 8 May 2016 11:47:41 GMT, 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from?
>>> ...
>>> 
>>> I recently considered that maybe the three dimensions are just human
>>> (Descarte) made mathematical constructs.
>>> 
>>> We could easily number all locations in a cubical area with one
>>> coordinate starting at top left, near and progressing to bottom, right
>>> , far.
>>
>>I take it you never made it to high school math where things like spherical
>>coordinants were introduced.
>>
>> 
> 
> Yes I did make it through high school (and college) math. Did you make
> it through elementary school English because your reply makes me
> wonder?

Then why are you apparently unaware that there are a HUGE number of coordinate
systems, all of which are human mathematical constructs?


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586795

On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 15:44:36 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Jun 2016 16:15:23 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> 
>>>Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On 8 May 2016 11:47:41 GMT, 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>Where did the 3 geometric dimensions come from?
>>>> ...
>>>> 
>>>> I recently considered that maybe the three dimensions are just human
>>>> (Descarte) made mathematical constructs.
>>>> 
>>>> We could easily number all locations in a cubical area with one
>>>> coordinate starting at top left, near and progressing to bottom, right
>>>> , far.
>>>
>>>I take it you never made it to high school math where things like spherical
>>>coordinants were introduced.
>>>
>>> 
>> 
>> Yes I did make it through high school (and college) math. Did you make
>> it through elementary school English because your reply makes me
>> wonder?
>
>Then why are you apparently unaware that there are a HUGE number of coordinate
>systems, all of which are human mathematical constructs?

I'm not unaware of that. You just assume that because you want to
demonstrate your proficiency by insulting others in this group.

That was precisely my point. All coordinate systems are purely human
mathematical constructs and a one dimensional system as I described
might be just as valid as our conventional 3 dimensional ones.

We may sometimes laugh at string theory with its 11+ dimensions, but
that my be no more ridiculous than our conventional 3 dimensional
coordinate systems.

Mike
---------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Strickland			Reston, VA
---------------------------------------------------

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586923

On 6/26/2016 2:34 PM, Michael J. Strickland wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 15:44:36 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>> Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 24 Jun 2016 16:15:23 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> wrote:
>y are you apparently unaware that there are a HUGE number of coordinate
>> systems, all of which are human mathematical constructs?
>
> I'm not unaware of that. You just assume that because you want to
> demonstrate your proficiency by insulting others in this group.
>
> That was precisely my point. All coordinate systems are purely human
> mathematical constructs and a one dimensional system as I described
> might be just as valid as our conventional 3 dimensional ones.
>
> We may sometimes laugh at string theory with its 11+ dimensions, but
> that my be no more ridiculous than our conventional 3 dimensional
> coordinate systems.
>


wrong.   one can solve 3 dimentional problems, even 4th and 5th, but not 
much above that at all.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586684

On Fri, 24 Jun 2016 10:38:52 -0400, Michael J.
Strickland wrote:

> We could easily number all locations in a cubical area with one
> coordinate starting at top left, near and progressing to bottom, right
> , far

I'm not sure but I think computers store 3-D
information in that manner, using only one number to
find various parts of it. 
--
    "Narrow experience makes for narrow 
     views.
             - Firearm Owner

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586695

ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2016 10:38:52 -0400, Michael J.
> Strickland wrote:
> 
>> We could easily number all locations in a cubical area with one
>> coordinate starting at top left, near and progressing to bottom, right
>> , far
> 
> I'm not sure but I think computers store 3-D
> information in that manner, using only one number to
> find various parts of it. 

Ummm, no, computers store 3D information in whatever manner the programmer
used, which could be anything. Generally it is in whatever is the easiest
convention for the task at hand.

The only computers I have ever heard of that knew anything about coordinates
were purpose built analog computers that used spherical coordinates. 

The task of locating a freeway off ramp is very different than the task
of defining an object for a 3D printer.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586699

actually, tripolars, as with phones

> The only computers I have ever heard of that knew anything about coordinates
> were purpose built analog computers that used spherical coordinates. 
> 
> The task of locating a freeway off ramp is very different than the task
> of defining an object for a 3D printer.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586708

On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 22:44:24 -0000,
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Jun 2016 10:38:52 -0400, Michael J.
>> Strickland wrote:
>> 
>>> We could easily number all locations in a cubical area with one
>>> coordinate starting at top left, near and progressing to bottom, right
>>> , far
>> 
>> I'm not sure but I think computers store 3-D
>> information in that manner, using only one number to
>> find various parts of it. 
> 
> Ummm, no, computers store 3D information in whatever manner the programmer
> used, which could be anything. Generally it is in whatever is the easiest
> convention for the task at hand.
> 
> The only computers I have ever heard of that knew anything about coordinates
> were purpose built analog computers that used spherical coordinates. 
> 
> The task of locating a freeway off ramp is very different than the task
> of defining an object for a 3D printer.
> 
> 

Again I'm not sure (this is very old stuff I'm trying
to remember) but when you have, say, an array variable
like A(i,j,k) with i going from 1 to 10, j from 1 to
100, and k from 1 to 5 computer allocates memory
locations for it that form a continuous chain of 5000
location (each for a different value of that
variable). And when you want to retrieve what's stored
at A(3,70,4) computer does 3 + 70*10 + 4*100 = 1103
and goes to 1103rd position along that chain to get
the value. It is similar to how Strickland wants to
access a cubic volume using only one number. 

But I'm not sure :) 

Of course you could force the computer store your data
in any strange way you want, but if you leave it to
computer to do it that's I believe it does it.
--
   "If you always optimize, you'll never be 
    happy." 
                       - Donald Knuth

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586725

On 6/25/2016 6:25 PM, ClutterFreak wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 22:44:24 -0000,
> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>> ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 24 Jun 2016 10:38:52 -0400, Michael J.
>>> Strickland wrote:
>>>
>>>> We could easily number all locations in a cubical area with one
>>>> coordinate starting at top left, near and progressing to bottom, right
>>>> , far
>>>
>>> I'm not sure but I think computers store 3-D
>>> information in that manner, using only one number to
>>> find various parts of it.
>>
>> Ummm, no, computers store 3D information in whatever manner the programmer
>> used, which could be anything. Generally it is in whatever is the easiest
>> convention for the task at hand.
>>
>> The only computers I have ever heard of that knew anything about coordinates
>> were purpose built analog computers that used spherical coordinates.
>>
>> The task of locating a freeway off ramp is very different than the task
>> of defining an object for a 3D printer.
>>

> Again I'm not sure (this is very old stuff I'm trying
> to remember) but when you have, say, an array variable
> like A(i,j,k) with i going from 1 to 10, j from 1 to
> 100, and k from 1 to 5 computer allocates memory
> locations for it that form a continuous chain of 5000
> location (each for a different value of that
> variable). And when you want to retrieve what's stored
> at A(3,70,4) computer does 3 + 70*10 + 4*100 = 1103
> and goes to 1103rd position along that chain to get
> the value. It is similar to how Strickland wants to
> access a cubic volume using only one number.
>
> But I'm not sure :)


strickland just has a single dimensional array covering his "cubic 
spaces".  He has to remember where the string goes through the cubes.

you can address the same "cubic spaces" by braking it up into multi 
dimensional arrays.  It does not have to correspond to x,y,z, but that 
is readily convenient.

It is just addressing a finite set.  If you had infinite items or a lot 
of them, then spherical, cylendrical or x,y,z make more sense.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586732

On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 21:08:07 -0500, Sergio wrote:

> On 6/25/2016 6:25 PM, ClutterFreak wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 22:44:24 -0000,
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>> ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 24 Jun 2016 10:38:52 -0400, Michael J.
>>>> Strickland wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> We could easily number all locations in a cubical area with one
>>>>> coordinate starting at top left, near and progressing to bottom, right
>>>>> , far
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure but I think computers store 3-D
>>>> information in that manner, using only one number to
>>>> find various parts of it.
>>>
>>> Ummm, no, computers store 3D information in whatever manner the programmer
>>> used, which could be anything. Generally it is in whatever is the easiest
>>> convention for the task at hand.
>>>
>>> The only computers I have ever heard of that knew anything about coordinates
>>> were purpose built analog computers that used spherical coordinates.
>>>
>>> The task of locating a freeway off ramp is very different than the task
>>> of defining an object for a 3D printer.
>>>
> 
>> Again I'm not sure (this is very old stuff I'm trying
>> to remember) but when you have, say, an array variable
>> like A(i,j,k) with i going from 1 to 10, j from 1 to
>> 100, and k from 1 to 5 computer allocates memory
>> locations for it that form a continuous chain of 5000
>> location (each for a different value of that
>> variable). And when you want to retrieve what's stored
>> at A(3,70,4) computer does 3 + 70*10 + 4*100 = 1103
>> and goes to 1103rd position along that chain to get
>> the value. It is similar to how Strickland wants to
>> access a cubic volume using only one number.
>>
>> But I'm not sure :)
> 
> 
> strickland just has a single dimensional array covering his "cubic 
> spaces".  He has to remember where the string goes through the cubes.
> 

For a cuble of side 10 (or any integer) he'll have a
one dimensional array of 1000 elements, say B(i), i =
1 to 1000. Then if we ask him "show us where B(327) is
he'll solve x + 10y + 100z = 327, and gets z=3, y=2,
and x=7 and uses them to point to that location. This
is very simple for cubes of side 10 or any other
integers. but if the side is not integer his scheme
won't work.
--
     "Abe daryA rA agar natvAn keshid
     ham az An yek jor'eyi betvAn cheshid"

                    - Mowlana

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web