4d explained
Created on: September 4th, 2006
4d explained

Sponsorships:

Vote metrics:

rating total votes favorites comments
(4.19) 704 53 323

View metrics:

today yesterday this week this month all time
0 2 1 0 16,529

Inbound links:

views url
11 http://www.google.com/m?hl=en&gl=us&client=ms-android-huawei-us&
4 http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/
2 https://www.google.com/
2 http://www.google.com/search?q=youguysaredumb.com&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari
1 http://www.google.com/search

Add a comment

Please login or register to comment.
<< 1 2 >>
September 4th, 2006
(0)
What does this have to do with Steve?
September 4th, 2006
(0)
but of course
September 4th, 2006
(0)
That's actually pretty awesome. I'm waiting for a classical music fad to hit so that I can lay some knowledge down.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
SCREAMER!
September 4th, 2006
(0)
my vote, even tho everything ive just seen is true, can normally be represented by a single line... 1'd
September 4th, 2006
(0)
Except you fail, because a correct '1' is three lines, not one.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
i said normally u noob if u were writing on a piece of paper u would not draw 3 lines plz think b4 speaking i said normally
September 4th, 2006
(0)
so basically your trying to tell us that w= 0.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
I DID NOT LOL. :D
September 4th, 2006
(0)
What you have there is a mix of Y and X still. Its not a 4D object just as an image of a "3D object" isnt one untill physical. Unless you are trying for an artists impression but then you could draw it as anything =P
September 4th, 2006
(0)
I have always had an easy time understand and seeing both with 'lines' and geometry a 4D shape. What I fail to understand is what relevance can this have in the super powers of reality. Easily enough, what would a 4 dimensional anything look like, if at all possible in a conceivable physical. Does this like the drawn 2nd Dimension have only a place on paper? hahaha.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
very informational :D
September 4th, 2006
(0)
"so basically your trying to tell us that w= 0." Please explain what you mean.
September 4th, 2006
(-1)
im sry i cant subscribe to this. im sticking with the 4th dimension being time.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
This isn't so much a YTMND as a product of frustration courtesy of all the misinformation that came before it. Kind of cool.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
dimensions + 1 = vote
September 4th, 2006
(0)
Yo WTF, I want a response.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
cassio: Giving people a more intuitive understanding of 4-dimensional geometry gives them an advantage if they start learning either a) relativistic physics, in which you think in terms of spacetime as a united 4d manifold, or b) mathematical analysis. multidimensional models are very important for putting together statistical models. The visual interpretation is not something you'll ever manage to perceive with a real 4d object, but it helps to get your brain thinking in the right mode.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
We see three-dimensionally, unless you're blind in one eye. Unless you're talking about what we're perceiving at any given instance, and not what we're constantly perceiving.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
any given instant*
September 4th, 2006
(0)
Meh, my wording was unclear there. What I meant is... unless you're talking about the image after our brains combine two images from both of our eyes in a given instant into one image. Anyway, not an important part. It just stuck out to me :P.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
I still can't see them in my head, but I've always known they were real. But thanks for trying.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
"We see three-dimensionally, unless you're blind in one eye" - you don't actually see 3-d with 2 eyes. You see two slightly different 2d images, and your brain extrapolates 3d data from the difference between the two.
September 4th, 2006
(1)
Now do a 5D object. :-D
September 4th, 2006
(0)
Looks like I spoke too soon. You're right in that case. ;)
September 4th, 2006
(-1)
all the explanation in the world won't change the fact that 4-dimensional objects quite simply can't exist. Still, a good explanation.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
you learn something new everyday
September 4th, 2006
(2)
4d. Haha, get it?
September 4th, 2006
(-1)
ohhhhh reginald..... I DISAGREE! on a 2-d space, the third dimension is imagined. while the attempt at 4-d was just, it simply cannot be done in 2 dimensions
September 4th, 2006
(0)
syncan: lolz
September 4th, 2006
(0)
September 4th, 2006
(0)
OMG INCREDIBLE! I got like 2 full pages of scroll before the first person who 1'd it with a completely inane comment about the difference between 2d and 4d. my work here is complete.
September 4th, 2006
(-2)
i hope you die and burn in hell
September 4th, 2006
(0)
Z= .5Y+.5X as a projected 2D image; It's not REALLY that, so your whole subsitution for W is wrong. In that case, W isn't even a new dimension, is just another projected vector.
September 4th, 2006
(1)
"W isn't even a new dimension, is just another projected vector." Yes. Just like Z. NEITHER OF THESE VECTORS CAN POSSIBLY BE SHOWN ORTHOGONALLY ON A 2D SCREEN.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
So what happens when you stand in the middle of a railroad track? Is Z the left rail and W the right when you project them onto a screen?
September 4th, 2006
(0)
I know math dammit, I don't need it preached to me.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
Hey, thanks very much! I understood it and enjoyed learning!
September 4th, 2006
(0)
5'd though for an attempt to teach ignorami. Project gravity in 11-dimensions next/explain string theory.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
"The Owly1" is right.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
I'll steal this for a school project some day
September 4th, 2006
(0)
"So what happens when you stand in the middle of a railroad track..." The effect you see when standing in a railroad track doesn't happen at all in "projected" views. It happens only when using proper vanishing-point perspective. This image uses isometric perspective, in which parallel lines remain parallel rather than meeting at a vanishing point.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
I don't have the attention span to watch this entire thing.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
It doesn't seem like it, but I actually 4d your ytmnd.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
It is pretty obvious actually. Thanks for breaking down the Hyper Cube though.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
By changing x into a negetive, you prove nothing!!! The 4D can be experienced as a 3D world with movement or a 4D without. It is considered that there are multiple layers to the fourth, ergo there would be much more and it would be even more confusing.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
yes that is a 4-d object but a 4-d object is 1.impossible to see with the human eye and 2.impossible to entirly represent on a 2d plane so your end result ends up looking like a hexigonial prism
September 4th, 2006
(0)
CaptainChu: WTF are you talking about? Feel free to downvote but at least have something coherent to say.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
DOESNT ANY1 CATCH THE IRONY? HE THORWS LOADS OF EQUATIONS IN HIS YTMND. AND STILL CANT FIGURE OUT HOW TO STOP FAD WHORING.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
thank f*ck someone explained it at last. I can go all the way up to 5 dimensions on a 2d projection, and it's easy to make a 4 dimensional model as a 3d projection using wires.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
so could the lines connecting the two cubes in the hypercube be thought of as representing time, and that the two cubes are the same cube at different points along the timeline of the cube's 3-dimensional universe? because i heard somewhere that time can be thought of as the fourth dimension.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
Well played.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
TIME CUBE TIME CUBE TIME CUBE TIME CUBE TIME CUBE TIME CUBE TIME CUBE TIME CUBE TIME CUBE TIME CUBE TIME CUBE TIME CUBE TIME CUBE TIME CUBE TIME CUBE TIME CUBE TIME CUBE TIME CUBE
September 4th, 2006
(0)
5'd for interesting and proper slideshow ending
September 4th, 2006
(0)
I was really hoping for NEDM...
September 4th, 2006
(0)
Okay, so mathematically and geometrically it is possible to represent four-dimensional objects. That still doesn't mean they actually exist. Hell, let's go crazy and put two more axes on there, and talk about six-dimensional objects like they actually exist, too. It'll be a good time!
September 4th, 2006
(0)
interesting and informative, i think there should be more ytmnd's that expand our combined knowledge base. also c*cks.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
Owly1 wins. 3d means three dimensions, vertical, horizontal, and depth. the 4d object doesn't have any more dimensions than the 3d does, it just has a more complex shape. In essence it's just a really fancy 3d object.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
If that doesn't convince you, try making your 4-d object in a 3-d modeling program. You can do it rather easily. Why is this? because it's really just a 3d object :P
September 4th, 2006
(0)
Slow it down a bit.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
even though I hate geometry, this explanation is great. But in terms of existance, I'm going to save some keystrokes and agree with Kaisharga.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
ouch! teh maths! j/k, this was actually pretty cool (I never got beyond algebra 1 in school), and now actually understand what you were explaining. 5'd
September 4th, 2006
(0)
intelligence works!
September 4th, 2006
(0)
4d doesnt exist, game over, good day sir
September 4th, 2006
(0)
i woulda 5'd yeh.. but -1 for making me learn on my last day of summer, gj otherwise
September 4th, 2006
(0)
Hypercube FTW
September 4th, 2006
(-1)
The 4th dimention is time, you show 3D and 4D objects in your pictures, 2D is a line, and 1D is impossible to represent. So fnar.
September 4th, 2006
(-1)
Um, time is the 4th dimension. Are you trying to represent time dimensionally (on a 'w' axis')?
May 6th, 2007
(0)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_line
September 4th, 2006
(0)
no room on YTMND for math
September 4th, 2006
(0)
5'd
September 4th, 2006
(0)
Thank you for bringing something intelligent to ytmnd.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
you made this music? I like it. Got any more?
September 4th, 2006
(0)
It's difficult to explain 4D, especially in 2D, because it's not something that people are used to seeing, and since people don't think, they can't imagine it. 5'd for effort though.
September 4th, 2006
(1)
Oh to the idiots...The 4th dimension isn't f*cking time. Get educated before you start saying bullsh*t you heard off of a TV show.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
Brain... hurt... ah... *asplodes*
September 4th, 2006
(0)
Yay hypercube.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
I wonder what he'll learn in math class tomorrow to come home and pretend he knew all along!
September 4th, 2006
(0)
=]
September 4th, 2006
(0)
Ow, my brain.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
I like justifying my time spent on YTMND with submissions like this one where I actually do learn something new and relevant. Thank You.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
September 4th, 2006
(0)
For effort
September 4th, 2006
(0)
Dude, don't go apes**t because few people here (including myself) understand all the intricicies of 4-dimentional geometry. 3'd for calling me a f*****g idiot.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
UBER WIN
September 4th, 2006
(0)
I'm surprised "youguysaredumb.ytmnd.com" wasn't already taken
September 4th, 2006
(0)
3'd for trying way to hard to prove a point that really doesn't matter.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
5 because I am taking geometry. I might need this stuff!
September 4th, 2006
(0)
Your w-axis can still be represented by cartesian coordinates in 3 dimensions. So really all you've created is a vector in the -x,y, and z direction. Try again smartass.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
haha upvoted
September 4th, 2006
(0)
And I understand what you're saying about a screen only allowing 2-D. However, in our universe at least, there are only 3 dimensions of space. Your argument makes no sense to anyone with a half decent education, and more importantly common sense. I also like how you're so smug in thinking that you're right too. Get a clue.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
einstien jr. =)
September 4th, 2006
(0)
people arguing with him just for the sake of arguing. good job spazdor
September 4th, 2006
(0)
Excellent explanation.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
Everything in our existence can be represented in height, width, & depth. So, the 4th dimension isn't another axis, it's time.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
I completly understand this, but only because I am an artist and I know the basis of perspective. :/
September 4th, 2006
(0)
I cant believe I watched the whole thing....
September 4th, 2006
(0)
September 4th, 2006
(0)
2 + 2 = 4. Beat that, bitch!
September 4th, 2006
(0)
also, I love how you are getting pwned by people who actually know geometry (which wouldn't include myself)
September 4th, 2006
(0)
math = 1'd
September 4th, 2006
(0)
I grasp the concept just fine, but this site still sucks ass, just like all the other 4-D sites.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
Actually, what happens when you stand in the middle of a train track and look down the line isn't parallel at all, its actually OH SH*T DEAD.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
I agree, A wrinkle in time did bad things to geometry.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
The More You Know.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
Good show
September 4th, 2006
(0)
thats still 3d
September 4th, 2006
(0)
the best part of this ytmnd is the downvoters who think they understand this better than you do.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
Im hoping this is a joke site. Cause surely your not so stupid to actually think thats correct.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
nedm?
February 26th, 2010
(0)
Not even dimensional models?
September 4th, 2006
(0)
-4 for 4D
September 4th, 2006
(0)
Wow a lot of people here are f*cking idiots that get their "facts" from sci fi movies.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
4'D. But thanks I liked it.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
I'll add another dimension to my vote.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
Oh and the "impossible to represent on a 2D plane" guys are the dumbest. A 4D object is about as representable on a 2d plane as a 3d object. Like it said in the ytmnd (and this is a long known fact) the 3D obects are on a 2D surface.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
4'd, -1 because you are quite clearly being a total smartass. Also, I just wanted to say "4'd" on a ytnd about 4D :-)
September 4th, 2006
(0)
Finally, LunaresAeran, the time theory is in the disambiguation.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
I see. I don't like downvoters, and I think they're missing that this is just a normal "representation" of 4D, not actually 4D. "Also c*cks" ftw.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
I see what ya did thare
September 4th, 2006
(0)
In our universe, there are three or four dimensions, depending on whether or not you count time as a dimension. This does not prevent us from projecting from four dimensions into two dimensions, just as the fact that Newton was probably wrong about how the universe works doesn't prevent us from talking about and simulating Newtonian physics.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
Um guys... "time" itself is not the 4th dimension. Just because it said that in the preview for the Blinx game for Xbox doesn't mean it's true. It's much more complicated. also 5'd
September 4th, 2006
(0)
That wasn't directed toward you, ihope127
September 4th, 2006
(0)
why didn't you use a right-handed coordinate system?
September 4th, 2006
(0)
These neve get old
September 4th, 2006
(0)
i see what you did there
September 4th, 2006
(0)
I would rather get my math from YTMND
September 4th, 2006
(0)
this is good
September 4th, 2006
(0)
WIN FOR EDUCATION
September 4th, 2006
(0)
On ytmnd.com, we are artists, not mathmaticians.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
if the 4th dimension is time, how exactly can you make that a point? time keeps moving, lol.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
5 for url
September 4th, 2006
(0)
No loling here, just gay.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
cool, still dont get it tho, five for good job
September 4th, 2006
(0)
Excellent.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
haha
September 4th, 2006
(0)
Isn't the Sound from Eve Online?
September 4th, 2006
(0)
I was expecting NEDM. Fail.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
lol, nerd
September 4th, 2006
(0)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercube the downvoters are probably people who think imaginary numbers are any less real than any real numbers and can't pass high school math
September 4th, 2006
(0)
leetsauce!
September 4th, 2006
(0)
I downvoted the 4-D ytmnds because they weren't funny.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
Your vote, by Baron. 1.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
trying to represent 4D in a way that is comfortable for the mentally challenged
September 4th, 2006
(0)
The thing is, the object described can be made in full 3-D and there is nothing wierd about it... I just dont get it :P
September 4th, 2006
(0)
YAY MATH
September 4th, 2006
(0)
too bad I don't know what the f*ck you're saying
September 4th, 2006
(0)
also blocks
September 4th, 2006
(0)
i hate math
September 4th, 2006
(0)
WIN!! Us seeing a 4th dimensional object would be like a 2D object seeing a 3D object, impossible for the 2D object to comprehend. Read flatland
September 4th, 2006
(0)
but every point in that shape you made can be expressed as (x, y, z). if you included the negative sides of your axis' you'd see that the w axis was just a rotated version of the z axis you drew. the 4th dimension is time, k?
September 4th, 2006
(0)
also even if the 4th dimension exists theoretically it's like the square root of one, it simply doesn't exist. therefore there can be no "4d objects"
September 4th, 2006
(0)
I see what you did there, you added Also C*cks so the masses don't Downvote :-P
September 4th, 2006
(0)
Wow, education on the internet was never this much fun! :D
September 4th, 2006
(0)
5'd for comments section.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
4d fad needs to die
September 4th, 2006
(0)
needs NEDM. "4'd"
September 4th, 2006
(0)
sarsamis w is 90 decrees of from z. not opposite of it. Did you even watch the ytmnd? For it to be -z in 3 demensions, it would have to point to the bottom left, not top left.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
NEver knew. Thank you.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
really good
September 4th, 2006
(0)
5'd for the comments. Apparently being able to imagine the 4th dimension is only for people with an above average IQ, and it's apparent who doesn't have such a mind among us.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT GEOMETRY.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
I dont understand still.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
You did in a few slides what it took Rudy Rucker 300+ pages to do. 5'd.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
What is this math class?
September 4th, 2006
(0)
You handed those arses a nice cup of ownage. 4D 4eva
September 4th, 2006
(0)
Music FTW. Also very informative.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
just a bunch of cubes stuck together.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
my head asplode
September 4th, 2006
(0)
LOL BASIC MATH FOR NUBZ
September 4th, 2006
(0)
I'm a genius now!!
September 4th, 2006
(0)
unaidedcoder, think of the x, y, and z axis' as they would actually appear in a 3d space. also consider the planes that each axis creates. draw any line starting from the origin 90 degrees from z and you'll see that line is already defined with (x,y). and any point in that cube thing can be defined as (x,y,z).
September 4th, 2006
(0)
neds more nedm
September 4th, 2006
(0)
a better epxlaination ********* here: http://www.tenthdimension.com/flash2.php *******************
September 4th, 2006
(0)
SCVHEET
September 4th, 2006
(0)
Very Nice
September 4th, 2006
(0)
tnx mate.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
Dude, w is to z as x is to y. That's the point. You are working on the rationalization that you cannot have a natural 4D object. You cannot see a 4D object in the 3D way of thinking you are using, like how yu cannot see a 2D object in 3D properly.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
Fail. Not only are X,Y, and Z incorrectly definited (The way you have it would be like flipping x and y on a 2-d graph) but W is just another aspect of the Z plane. You're not making anything that can't be described by (x,y,z)
September 4th, 2006
(0)
my head just asploded
September 4th, 2006
(0)
LOL EDUCATION
September 4th, 2006
(0)
1 for thinking you are smarter than others because you took high school geometry. Also slideshow.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
needs nedm
September 4th, 2006
(0)
I'm enlightened to I'm also instructed against applying it
September 4th, 2006
(0)
Ok, explanation FOR DUMMIES... in the same way he created a 3rd dimension in the 2D image using a PROJECTION of the Z onto the X, Y plane of (0.5, 0.5).. oh I give up, if this ytmnd didn't explain it, nothing will.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
lol. also c*cks
September 4th, 2006
(0)
Well sarsamis, you are right. To make the 4d object physically real is impossible, as you cannot make another right-angle at the points of the 3d cube. You need to imagine it as a 4d projection onto 3d, much like the 3d projection to 2d done initially for the cube.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
i understand that a 4d object can theorretically exist. it's just that spazdor's explanation of it isn't very good, when a square is projected depth is aded to what was once a 2d object. but when a cube is projected in that same manner then you are just adding onto already defined dimensions.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
the 4th dimenson is usualy considered to be time since after you define a point by its legth from the origin, its height from the origin, and its depth from the origin then duration is seemingly the only thing that can further define that object.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
5'd. Reasoning: I actually have a better understanding of the term 'hypercube', and as well a fourth-demension representation on a two dementional surface. As well, you get 5 for "also, c*cks" and "i hate you all" in keywords.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
this is a decent site though, i wouldn't have 1'd it if it didn't say "for you f*cking idiots".
September 4th, 2006
(0)
doesnt need any dm? lol, bad pun....
September 4th, 2006
(0)
Makes perfect sense to me. love the site spazdor.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
Finally. The movie for stargate does a good job of explaining this, too.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
Thats some next level sh*t....yo I think you just created a new fact right there. also, c*cks.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
Lacks NEDM :(
September 4th, 2006
(0)
Steve Irwin wouldnt want it this way
September 4th, 2006
(0)
NIce job spazdor for proving how stupid downvoters are. Also, c*cks.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
Educational!
September 4th, 2006
(0)
Yay for Spazdor!
September 4th, 2006
(0)
Attension sarsamis: I don't know about you, but *I* am a four dimensional object. There's no theoreticality about me. I existed, I exist, and I'm optimistic that I'll continue to exist.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
Also. attention Venginator: Z is an axis, not a plane.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
I downvote this, not because it's wrong (it's the closest we've come on YTMND to being right), but because there is no NEDM.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
Needs nedm
September 4th, 2006
(0)
Make a hypercube for me and send it to me in the mail and ill give you three dimensions more
September 4th, 2006
(1)
anyone who votes less than 3 is too unintellegent to understand it.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
that hurt my brain
September 4th, 2006
(0)
secret nazi geometry!
September 4th, 2006
(0)
x,y,and z are all perpendicular to one another and parallel to none. Make your 4th axis do that, and then you're not the real idiot. ;)
September 4th, 2006
(0)
Man some of you sure are dumb.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
Bonne explication.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
another ytmnd breakthrough
September 4th, 2006
(0)
I kept expecting secret Nazi... 5 cause it was all true.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
+5 for being right and sencible, -1 for trying to do this with abunch of retards
September 4th, 2006
(0)
Whoa! slow down! My brain needs to callibrate. Okay, I understand now. NEDM is the centre of all 4d objects.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
but the z-plane is not diagonal in relation to the x and y planes, it is entirely exclusive...if the x line extends right to left across the computer monitor, and the y axis extends vetically across the monitor, then the z axis is perpendicular to the x-y plane, not diagonal...
September 4th, 2006
(0)
Whoa.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
I was waiting for a NEDM! also lol
September 4th, 2006
(0)
all i see is lines.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
I'd comment, but baconquest pretty much said what I wanted to.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
If anybody was looking for an actual reason to hate this site, look at all the 5s on this peice of sh*t. I know your nerds and everything but this ytmnd.com is not serious.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
:)
September 4th, 2006
(0)
NEDM is the 4th dimension. You are dumb! Nah jk the real reason you are dumb is because you have yet to explain that you are speaking about spatial dimensions and technically time is the 4th dimension and the 4th spatial dimension would be the 5th. kthxbaidumbass everyonefails.ytmnd.com
September 4th, 2006
(0)
I think it's funny that some ytmnder are saying the fourth dimension is time when you are actually talking about the fourth spacial dimension. Anyway I think if that is what the fourth dimension was that would mean that(In real life, not on paper) it is just a combination of x, y, and z.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
:O
September 4th, 2006
(0)
ok
September 4th, 2006
(0)
you wanna see in 4d? Expand your head size and grow 2 more eyes
September 4th, 2006
(0)
you f*ckin fail at life if you think anybody cares XD here's your 1
September 4th, 2006
(0)
needs some NEDM badly.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
lol lines
September 4th, 2006
(0)
dude you are so gay
September 4th, 2006
(0)
now help me with my calculus homework... F of x = x^2 so find the equations of the two lines that are tangent to F(x) that pass through 1,-3 i dunno how to do it :(
September 4th, 2006
(0)
i`m still on the first part but I like it...
September 4th, 2006
(0)
5, because of all the bigot downvoters. Most of them should be slapped for stupidity.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
i had 4d sex once
September 4th, 2006
(0)
Ok, first we take the derivative of F(x), which is F'(x) = 2x. So now, we construct an equation for the slope of the line from a given point on F(x) to the point (1,-3). Since the Y value is F(x), which is x^2, the 'rise' component of that slope is going to be x^2 + 3. The 'run' component is super easy - run is just x - 1. So, the formula G(x) = (x^2 + 3) / (x - 1) gives the slope of a line through that point on the graph, and through (1, -3).
September 4th, 2006
(0)
munka: Now equate that function with your derivative, and we find where those tangent points are. F'(x) = G(x), so that means 2x = (x^2 + 3)/(x - 1). Solve for x, and you have your tangent points. Amirite?
September 4th, 2006
(0)
Ok, fine. Now explain the 5th Dimension. I know Superman's enemy- Mr Myxzptlk lives there. But why does he look like a human midget with a purple bowler hat, and why does it interface with Earth every 90 days, and why does his saying his name backwards send him back? Explain that to me, smart guy.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
I'm guessing that the only way someone on ytmnd was patient enough to explain something as "complicated" as this would be because spazdor was either allowed to fold through a line in the sixth dimension from one point in the fifth dimension to another (from a non lazy ytmnd to this one) point in the fifth dimension, or he folded through a line in the ninth dimension to reach a completely different point in the eighth dimension.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
Then again, I sucks c*cks. lololol.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
sweet... i had to read that like 7 times to get it.
September 4th, 2006
(-1)
If you were really smart, you'd realize this sucks as a ytmnd. If I want to read about irrelevant math, I'll read it in a text format.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
BUSH IS GAY. we need more math ytmnds.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
thanks for explaining. math ftw.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
Honestly, not to sound egotistical, but i'm a smart guy, but geometry is not my forté. Good job trying to explain this, but I still don't get geometry.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
man, waiting the whole time for a NEDM/Screamer, I think I died alittle inside. 4d
September 4th, 2006
(0)
Great, I enjoyed watching this.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
http://www.shoutwire.com/viewstory/18527/The_Tenth_Dimension
September 4th, 2006
(0)
Lol 4d is impossible. You have height, width, and depth. There is no other direction. What you labled as w is just z going in another direction.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
Fav'd for making me smarter.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
Tripy
<< 1 2 >>