>he doesn't fap to 1d

File: 1485993127853.jpg (10KB, 223x226px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 223x226px

>>34588502
>he doesn't fap to 4D

>>34588526
>he doesn't fap to infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces

>>34588502
>1D
>not superior 0D
Fapping to dimensions is for existencecucks

File: 1472228230589.gif (867KB, 480x336px) Image search: [Google]

867KB, 480x336px

>>34588526
Actually had a giggle. You deserve this (You).

>>34588502
>tfw always fap to -2D

how can -1D even compete?

>>34588502
plenty of people on /r9k/ fap to D, that's why this board is so fucking gay

>>34589143
you make me laugh so much

>>34589143
>He doesn't fap exclusively to barnett integrable space functions

>>34589675
LMAO you're making me laugh!!!!!!!!!somuch omg;-;

>194x1
>1D

>he doesn't fap to boxes that may or may not contain a cat that may or may not be alive

>>34589675
>fapping
>not applying a pullback on his cotangent bundle

>>34589621
>>34589717
stop

get some help

>>34589762
This is what I'm wondering. Would true 1d have to be invisible? (OR maybe just theoretical)

>>34590862
Would true 3D have to be invisible to a 4D being?

>not fapping to consciousness itself

Plebs

>>34590880
I'm just asking, how could a true one dimensional object exist?

>>34590880
So yes, still theoretical just like 4d and above

>>34591016
How could a true three dimensional object exist? The question is meaningless. You can do physics with an arbitrary number of dimensions. You can have particles on lines, sheets, space, higher-dimensional space... 3D is just what allows life to happen.

File: SHOUNDALA.jpg (66KB, 645x773px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 645x773px

>>34591098
>tfw too dumb to understand dimensions

>>34591034
Isnt the 4d time?

>>34591123
Time isn't a dimension, it's a concept

>>34591123
Time is the fourth dimension in standard physics, yes, but there are theories in which the universe is actually 11-dimensional. You just can't see the other dimensions because they're wrapped up really snugly and you need massive amounts of energy just to probe them.

File: 1480359130047.png (62KB, 208x206px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 208x206px

>>34591098

If you don't have a physics degree, or are studying physics, kindly fuck off and stop talking out your ass.

If you do have one, what the fuck kind of shit hole university did you attend?

>>34591225
So far, Anon has provided logic. You're just shitposting. Prove him wrong or shut the fuck up.

>>34588502
MODS WHAT THE FUCK

>>34591225
What exactly about my post was so wrong that it caused you to vargpost? Asking whether it's possible to have a "true" 1D object is as meaningful as asking whether it's possible to have a "true" 3D object. There's nothing special about 3 spatial dimensions except it allows for closed orbits around stars.

Barring string theory and its compactification arguments or some sort of anthropic principle ("because if there were 2 or 4 dimensions, we wouldn't be here to observe them"), you can comfortably do physics in any number of dimensions. You do run into some problems with renormalization in quantum field theory, but there's nothing a priori "wrong" with a different number of dimensions.