- cross-posted to:
- science_memes@mander.xyz
You must log in or register to comment.
You’re all thinking too two-dimensionally. Clearly the people are being instructed to arrange themselves into a tetrahedron.
Tetrahedrons man, tetrahedrons.
So this makes me wonder if one could force a move into a higher dimension by somehow constraining a set of connected distances in this way.
Sort of like protein folding as a way to bootstrap a dimensional jump.
You might like And He Built a Crooked House by Robert Heinlein - the story of a tesseract-shaped house that folds itself into a real tesseract during an earthquake.
ikr? It’s like some people don’t even recognize a tetrahedron
Fools!
…limiting themselves to Euclidean geometry…Only one of them is limiting himself to Euclidean geometry. The others are perfectly calm.
“…waving a gun around!?…”
Those arms have a complex non-planar geometry, but I guarantee they are realizable even in an Euclidean space. Try it again.
Also perhaps one of the middle lines is unlabled and the diagram isn’t at all to scale (or is the result of forced perspective?) but I think that exhausts my interpretive charitability quota for the day lol
You beat me to it.
No one said right angles.
Equal sides in a triangle are only possible if the corners are equal. So, 60⁰ each.
But its height cannot be half of base because of the same Pythagorean theorem
(1,5)²+(1,5/2)²=2,8125
sqrt(2,8125) ≈ 1,677, which is half of a diagonal
So, we get 4 sides that are 1,5 in a parallelogram, but diagonals are 1,5 and 3,354, as opposed to both being 1,5 as shown on the picture
TL;DR: Won’t work because Pythagorean theorem
It’s funny how we say “because of such and such theorem” as if if some greek dude didn’t come up with his little story, the height could totally be half of base.
Decolonialize Maths!
We do need short names, but they don’t all have to be wyt guys. Pre-globalization, I’m sure many true maths statements were independently discovered by many people.
Pyramid?
Yes, it is possible with a 3-sided pyramid, i.e. tetrahedron. If we dont look at all 4 points as being on the same plane but 2 opposite corners being offset above or below the other two, this could totally be a tatrahedron.
So those two darker green symbols would represent someone shorter or taller. Totally plausible.
Wdym?
They could each be on the vertices of a tetrahedron for all we know…
We do know that, with those measurements, they aren’t confined to a single (Euclidean) plane.
Exactly! I regret that I have but one upvote to give.
I was thinking of plane surfaces, but if their altitudes are different, I guess it’d be possible.
Saddle shaped universe confirmed
Looks like a tetrahedron to me.
That implies one person is observing 3 other people from the above (or flying over), which is not exactly trivial.
Nobody said it would be easy
Exactly! The diagram is simply a schematic.
Just wanted to … nevermind.
Too late is too is too late is …
exactly what I came here to say
Middle one should be the square root of 4.5 meters, or 2.12 meters
Funnily enough, this is valid under Chebyshev metric, same that kings in chess follow.
if the people were aranged in 3d in the shape of a tetrahedron (triangular pyramid) this would work out fine
No
Unless the measurement is from the corner to where the lines cross (peak of the pyramid), but that is not at all clear from how the diagram is drawn.
It’s not a square based pyramid, it’s a triangular based pyramid. Imagine the top right hand one floating up onto the air and moving to hover above the centre of the other three (which move to make an equalateral triangle). The distances work but the layout changes.
You mean a tetrahedron.
I do.
Ah, D&D rules
D&D still doesn’t have hexagons?
Pffft, Dnd had the ‘first diagonal 5, second diagonal 10’ rule. It worked well enough, aye?
It doesn’t anymore =(
5e uses diagonal = 5’
Well anything after 3.5e is a watered-down, bastardized version of the game anyway.
4e just used “squares” instead of 5 feet, but it, like 5e, used chebyshev distances.
Pathfinder 2e uses alternating diagonals though.
Alternating diagonals is in the (2014) DMG as an optional rule at least
Oh good! Octagons are a much better approximation of a circle than squares
calm down, they’re constraints on distance, not distance
Well you see, space isn’t flat in this very localized area!
What? Everytime I meet other people we always arange ourselves in the shape of a simplex of the appropriate dimension. Doesn’t everyone?
So the fifth person to arrive moves to the centre of the tetrahedron and shifts roughly 1.299m into the past or future.
I have a few questions.
- How do you attain time offset?
- Doesn’t that make conversation difficult?
- What even is the fifth dimension?
- How do you convert a distance in metres into a distance in time? You would surely then have a universal m/s? Oh, wait, there is a universal speed, it’s the speed of light, which means 1.299m is equivalent to about 4.3 billionths of a second, which is considerably less impressive for question 1 and just not at all problematic for question 2.
- If you’re using very fast motion for your time offset, doesn’t that make conversation even more difficult? How fast would you need to be going to dilate time for a few billionths of a second? Doesn’t Heisenberg uncertainty start to have an impact here? How can you be sure you got it right?
If you have to ask, you wouldn’t understand.
If I understood, I wouldn’t have to ask.
- So, the diagram doesn’t represent it well, but the 1.5m is a minimum. So, I just delay myself by half a heartbeat which is well over 4.3^e-9s.
Yes, but if they’re just minimums, there’s no need for even using the third dimension, let alone the fourth.
Oh, I may have violated distancing protocols then. My personal delay device doesn’t have sub-microsecond accuracy. Should I will have gotten a test for time-invariant COVID ?
I won’t tell if you won’t tell.
Thank you
