Argh!
-
V = s4? Are you sure? Rotating Hypercube[^], not easy is it? Some information[^]. Want to try again?
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^] Trolls[^]
Dalek Dave wrote:
Are you sure?
Yes.
Dalek Dave wrote:
Want to try again?
OK. A tesseract is a cube extruded along the w-axis a distance of s. Hence, V = s4.
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
Are you sure?
Yes.
Dalek Dave wrote:
Want to try again?
OK. A tesseract is a cube extruded along the w-axis a distance of s. Hence, V = s4.
You are falling into the trap that I fell into. That is it's volume in n Dimensional space. To work out it's volume in n-1 dimensional space is where it gets interesting. The volume then rather different, it is larger on the inside than the outside. Exterior volume is only the same as in n-1 space, whereas the internal volume is the n analogue. However the internal volume cannot be accessed from an n dimensional viewpoint.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^] Trolls[^]
-
Indeed I do, but you may note that I clearly stated "in 3D". By default, Silverlight 3D exists in 4D.
Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
He is intelligent, but not experienced. His pattern indicates two-dimensional thinking.
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^] -
Can't draw a point in Silverlight 5 3D. :wtf: Feels like going back in time.
Wout
A serious question: Isn't moving pixel sized triangles quicker with modern GPUs anyway? I assumed it was, still a PITA though.
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^] -
Can't draw a point in Silverlight 5 3D. :wtf: Feels like going back in time.
Wout
So you need a point with the circular aspect excluded. i.e. :beer:
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
You are falling into the trap that I fell into. That is it's volume in n Dimensional space. To work out it's volume in n-1 dimensional space is where it gets interesting. The volume then rather different, it is larger on the inside than the outside. Exterior volume is only the same as in n-1 space, whereas the internal volume is the n analogue. However the internal volume cannot be accessed from an n dimensional viewpoint.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^] Trolls[^]
Dalek Dave wrote:
To work out it's volume in n-1 dimensional space is where it gets interesting.
You mean its hyper-surface area.
Dalek Dave wrote:
The volume then rather different, it is larger on the inside than the outside.
I don't even know what that means. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=tesseract+volume[^]
-
As a dimension, yes, it is a theory.
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
You are falling into the trap that I fell into. That is it's volume in n Dimensional space. To work out it's volume in n-1 dimensional space is where it gets interesting. The volume then rather different, it is larger on the inside than the outside. Exterior volume is only the same as in n-1 space, whereas the internal volume is the n analogue. However the internal volume cannot be accessed from an n dimensional viewpoint.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^] Trolls[^]
Your talking bollocks again Dave.
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
A serious question: Isn't moving pixel sized triangles quicker with modern GPUs anyway? I assumed it was, still a PITA though.
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^]Maybe, I still have to look into how to draw a pixel sized triangle that remains pixel sized regardless of how much the user zooms in/out. In OpenGL/DirectX 9 this used to be quite easy, but now you have to get into vertex shaders, texture mapping and such just to draw a dot. So instead of just doing a few lines of code and be done with it, now you have to research for a day how to draw a dot.
Wout
-
He is intelligent, but not experienced. His pattern indicates two-dimensional thinking.
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^]
