
I got bored so i decided to do a version of the Tesseract aka the Hyper Cube.
This is actually the true approximation of a solid Tesseract. the bits i nthe middle were more or less for show.
This is actually the true approximation of a solid Tesseract. the bits i nthe middle were more or less for show.
Category Designs / Abstract
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 500 x 500px
File Size 270 kB
you have the gist of the idea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesseract
or hypercube is as the wiki defines the 4D version of a 3D cube is the simplest way to put it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesseract
or hypercube is as the wiki defines the 4D version of a 3D cube is the simplest way to put it.
lolz its simple really. I take the projection of the 4D surface of the 4D cube and convert it to 3D then to 2D and thus you get the image you see now. This is the static version of the hypercube. if it was tessellating it would be quite the show because it looks like the cube is actually sucking itself in and then spitting itself back out
You know nothing about dimensional geometry. The true approximation of a tesseract at this angle would look like only a transparent cube, you wouldn't be able to see the "middle" cube, which is really behind the bigger cube. But I don't expect you to understand any of that because you probably don't even care. However, let me get the point across that your "tesseract" is just the product of thinking too 3-dimensionally, and an abomination.
sigh... you obviously didn't look at the finer details of this image did you. there is a clear definition of the center even tho you don't really see it you need to look closer.
also really calling my art trash. thats a first actually. i'm rather proud of this piece and if you don't like it thats your opinion but if i recall art is the beauty in the eye of the beholder. So it beautiful to me and the several above you that also liked it. granted yes you are correct that at this angle it wouldn't show up correctly but also please remember there is no physical way a computer can render a 4d cube in 3d without it looking flat as it progresses through its tessellation.
also really calling my art trash. thats a first actually. i'm rather proud of this piece and if you don't like it thats your opinion but if i recall art is the beauty in the eye of the beholder. So it beautiful to me and the several above you that also liked it. granted yes you are correct that at this angle it wouldn't show up correctly but also please remember there is no physical way a computer can render a 4d cube in 3d without it looking flat as it progresses through its tessellation.
I'm not saying your art is trash, I'm saying that it's simply excruciatingly wrong. Because of this fact, you can end up confusing a lot of people about what a tesseract really is.
Also, you missed my point entirely about the construction of the tesseract. The smaller cube is NOT in the center. It is behind the nearest cube, and therefore would be invisible to the viewer.
I'm also not saying it's bad art at all. It's quite nice looking, and must've taken some time to make. But it's still completely upside-down in the terms of dimensional geometry laws.
Also, this last sentence really stuck with me:
"granted yes you are correct that at this angle it wouldn't show up correctly but also please remember there is no physical way a computer can render a 4d cube in 3d without it looking flat as it progresses through its tessellation."
Way to blame it on your computer. And I never mentioned ANYTHING about the cube looking flat at all. Nothing provoked that.
Oh, and one more thing:
Tessellation is a word that has NOTHING to do with tesseracts. Better hit the dictionary, dude.
Also, you missed my point entirely about the construction of the tesseract. The smaller cube is NOT in the center. It is behind the nearest cube, and therefore would be invisible to the viewer.
I'm also not saying it's bad art at all. It's quite nice looking, and must've taken some time to make. But it's still completely upside-down in the terms of dimensional geometry laws.
Also, this last sentence really stuck with me:
"granted yes you are correct that at this angle it wouldn't show up correctly but also please remember there is no physical way a computer can render a 4d cube in 3d without it looking flat as it progresses through its tessellation."
Way to blame it on your computer. And I never mentioned ANYTHING about the cube looking flat at all. Nothing provoked that.
Oh, and one more thing:
Tessellation is a word that has NOTHING to do with tesseracts. Better hit the dictionary, dude.
your last statement is also thus invalid.
another meaning of Tessellation is rotation along the three axis. if you were a member of the Winamp Advanced Visualization Studio forums my friends Pak-9 and Jheriko the gods of math visuals would chase you for saying that. Jheriko actually translated a 5d cube surface into 3d in the program.
another meaning of Tessellation is rotation along the three axis. if you were a member of the Winamp Advanced Visualization Studio forums my friends Pak-9 and Jheriko the gods of math visuals would chase you for saying that. Jheriko actually translated a 5d cube surface into 3d in the program.
Oooh, wow. The gods of math visuals are on a Winamp forum. That's really fucking impressive.
I know for a fact that translating something from 5D to 3D geometrically is child's play, so stop acting like these "math gods" are a big deal. You're trying to fool the wrong guy here.
Also, I find it somewhat suspicious that your definition of "tessellation" is nowhere to be found on any math archive or definition website.
Hell, I'd be damned if you can find PROOF that I'm wrong.
I know for a fact that translating something from 5D to 3D geometrically is child's play, so stop acting like these "math gods" are a big deal. You're trying to fool the wrong guy here.
Also, I find it somewhat suspicious that your definition of "tessellation" is nowhere to be found on any math archive or definition website.
Hell, I'd be damned if you can find PROOF that I'm wrong.
Comments