5 ms·

If the width of a pixel along the Z-axis is arbitrary, and you only see one, no, it would not be 3D. It's still 2D, you just have the ability to more easily see

If the width of a pixel along the Z-axis is arbitrary, and you only see one, no, it would not be 3D. It's still 2D, you just have the ability to more easily see. You gain no new information.

cassianoleal 4y ago
I'm with GP on this one. You say "width of a pixel". That width is a dimension. If that dimension exists, along with X and Y, then it should 3D. And that's when talking about video-games or computer graphics. In the Flatland example, there are no pixels. The characters shouldn't be able to see each other or the structures on their 2D plane at all.
- Bakary 4y ago
  They can if you see it as some sort of one-bit messaging as opposed to traditional vision
- bee_rider 4y ago
  Characters in a flat universe would have different sensory organs than us, talking about "sight" seems more like a translation for humans. "Sight" is a highly directional, high-resolution, low-latency sense, the physics of it... I mean the characters might not even understand it, we didn't for the vast majority of human history. All of physics would have to be different anyway, down to really fundamental stuff like how quantities which spread from a source radially operate, since we'd be looking at perimeters rather than surface areas.
- jakelazaroff 4y ago
  Don't think of the "width of a pixel" as what you'd see from the perspective of that 2D plane — think of it as a 2D projection of a 1D space.
- fnordpiglet 4y ago
  No, it’s not. A dimension requires freedom to be parameterized and independence from other dimensions. In this example “Y” is invariantly defined as 1. Similarly a level surface defines a dimension to a fixed value and provides an n-1 dimensional view of a n dimensional view. Mapping this to a level surface you declare Y=1 and only X is varying. Y has scale but no dimensionality due to its lack of freedom.

If the width of a pixel along the Z-axis is arbitrary, and you only see one, no, it would not be 3D. It's still 2D, you just have the ability to more easily see. You gain no new information.

cassianoleal 4y ago

I'm with GP on this one. You say "width of a pixel". That width is a dimension. If that dimension exists, along with X and Y, then it should 3D. And that's when talking about video-games or computer graphics. In the Flatland example, there are no pixels. The characters shouldn't be able to see each other or the structures on their 2D plane at all.

Bakary 4y ago
They can if you see it as some sort of one-bit messaging as opposed to traditional vision
bee_rider 4y ago
Characters in a flat universe would have different sensory organs than us, talking about "sight" seems more like a translation for humans. "Sight" is a highly directional, high-resolution, low-latency sense, the physics of it... I mean the characters might not even understand it, we didn't for the vast majority of human history. All of physics would have to be different anyway, down to really fundamental stuff like how quantities which spread from a source radially operate, since we'd be looking at perimeters rather than surface areas.
jakelazaroff 4y ago
Don't think of the "width of a pixel" as what you'd see from the perspective of that 2D plane — think of it as a 2D projection of a 1D space.
fnordpiglet 4y ago
No, it’s not. A dimension requires freedom to be parameterized and independence from other dimensions. In this example “Y” is invariantly defined as 1. Similarly a level surface defines a dimension to a fixed value and provides an n-1 dimensional view of a n dimensional view. Mapping this to a level surface you declare Y=1 and only X is varying. Y has scale but no dimensionality due to its lack of freedom.