Asklemmy

48837 readers

491 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 6 years ago

MODERATORS

Everyone talks about the 4th dimension, BUT why is 3D geometry so hard for the average person compared to 2D ? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) by zaknenou@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

58 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I think 3D geometry has a lot of quirks and has so many results that un_intuitively don't hold up. In the link I share a discussion with ChatGPT where I asked the following:

assume a plane defined by a point A=(x_0,y_0,z_0), and normal vector n=(a,b,c) which doesn't matter here, suppose a point P=(x,y,z) also sitting on the space R^3. Question is:
If H is a point on the plane such that (AH) is perpendicular to (PH), does it follow immediately that H is the projection of P on the plane ?

I suspected the answer is no before asking, but GPT gives the wrong answer "yes", then corrects it afterwards.

So Don't we need more education about the 3D space in highschools really? It shouldn't be that hard to recall such simple properties on the fly, even for the best knowledge retrieving tool at the moment.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] ProfessorOwl_PhD@hexbear.net 3 points 3 days ago (11 children)

So Don't we need more education about the 3D space in highschools really?

How often do you think most people need to know the advanced mathmatical properties of 3d space?

[–] CanadaPlus 0 points 3 days ago (7 children)

I mean, we live in it. It comes up in practice fairly often.

[–] kayky@thelemmy.club 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Let me guess, you're the kind of person who thinks we need to understand gravity to make use of it.

I really wish people like you could just have their mouths taped shut and their fingers glued together.

[–] CanadaPlus 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

That's pretty mean, bro/brah/other.

Even in the days of catapults, rough formulas for the effects of gravity made them work a lot better. Knowing "it goes down" can do a bit, but not everything. If you somehow didn't even know that it would be useless.

[–] kayky@thelemmy.club 1 points 1 day ago

Your misunderstanding comes from the type and amount of people that needed to have that knowledge.

For example, we don't need to know about ballistics to use a gun.

Even in the days of catapults, rough formulas for the effects of gravity made them work a lot better.

Do you have a source for this? I'm genuinely curious, considering Newton didn't show up until the 17th century.

load more comments (5 replies)

load more comments (8 replies)