Our use of the term 2d usually wrong?

[Iamme]

What is 2d?; a photo? Isn't even a photo made of molecules that are 3d? So is my argument one basically of semantics? You know; where someone says, "You Knowwwwww. Come on. A photo is really 2d. What you are looking at is 2d." Well, if the photo were put under a microscope, it be 3d, wouldn't it?

I can see a light image or a shadow being the closest thing to 2d. But that's it. Am I right?, or am I right?!

 

[bjornart]

No.

 

[drkitten]

What is 2d?; a photo?

A photograph is not 2d.

A photographic image is 2d.

Well, if the photo were put under a microscope, it be 3d, wouldn't it?

The photograph itself is 3D, even without the microscope.

The image remains 2D, even under the microscope.

 

[Orangutan]

Heh,

This reminds me of an argument I got over a colleagues screensaver. He had the Linux screen saver that shows a hypercube.

"Do you like it?" he asked, "it's a 3d representation of a 4 dimensional object."
"No it's not" I replied, "It's a 2d representation of a 3d representation of a 4 dimensional object."
"No, no, " he shot back "Look it's 3d you have to imagine the depth".
"Did you hear what you just said?" I returned, "You said you have to imagine the depth. I.e. one of the dimensions, so it's really 2d".
He thought about this for a minute and said "Ha! but we are all traveling through time".
I though about this for a moment and responded in the only reasonable manner, I wiggled his mouse, his spreadsheet reappeard.
"Not anymore" I smirked.

O.

 

[Number Six]

A photo is a 2d image even though the photo itself is 3d. This reminds me of when you show a picture of a cow to someone and say "What is this?" and they say "It's a cow" and you say "No it isn't, it's a picture of a cow." You're fooling them on semantics but when someone shows someone else a picture it is understood that they're then talking about the image on the picture rather than the picture itself.

 

[Iamme]

(new drkitten)
A photograph is not 2d.
A photographic image is 2d.

-----------------------------------------

We have a photograph, and then we have a photograph "image"? Then what is a photograph?

 

[Piscivore]

(new drkitten)
A photograph is not 2d.
A photographic image is 2d.

-----------------------------------------

We have a photograph, and then we have a photograph "image"? Then what is a photograph?

A piece of paper or plastic with a photographic image printed on it.

 

[exarch]

So is a marble statue a 3d object, or a 2d complex curved surface forming the edge of the marble?

 

[Iamme]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Iamme
(new drkitten)
A photograph is not 2d.
A photographic image is 2d.

-----------------------------------------
(Iamme)
We have a photograph, and then we have a photograph "image"? Then what is a photograph?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


(piscivore)
A piece of paper or plastic with a photographic image printed on it.

_________________________________________

(Iamme)

But what is the image made of thats above the paper? If it is thicker than light, wouldn't it be 3d?

 

[exarch]

Originally posted by Iamme
But what is the image made of thats above the paper? If it is thicker than light, wouldn't it be 3d?

Color is just reflection of certain wavelengths of light, so in a way, the photograph, no matter how uneven the surface, doesn't actually have an image layered on top of it. The image itself has no thickness.

 

[Rob Lister]

Oh.My.God.

Why do you all encourage him.

This is just too stupid.

Then again, I actually read the opening post (and I'm dumber for it) and many of the responses.

Here's to being part of the problem.

ETA: if he starts a post proclaiming that he just discovered that the square root of 2 isn't really 1, and people actually respond, then I'm leaving forever.

 

[kedo1981]

You’re confusing the real world object (the photographic paper) with the image printed on it. Even if you are considering the chemical emulsion the makes up a traditional photograph as a 3d dimensional “array’ molecules you are still only seeing the light that is reflected off of the top 2d layer

 

[Soapy Sam]

Heh,

... I wiggled his mouse...

O.

Pervert.

 

[CaveDave]

ETA: if he starts a post proclaiming that he just discovered that the square root of 2 isn't really 1, and people actually respond, then I'm leaving forever.

Last I noticed, the square root of 2 was not 1, had never been, and nobody would attempt to say it was.

Was this meant to say this poster (lamme) has a habit of 'discovering' the obvious?

Dave


Edited for clarity.

 

[csense]

The image itself has no thickness.

Yes it does, otherwise, it would only reflect light at right angles to it's surface if it were, truly, two dimensional...in which case, unless the object itself generates light, then you or I would never be able to see it since we would also need to be on a path perpendicular to it's surface, thus blocking the light source and angle of incidence.

In theory, it is possible for a two dimensional object to exist without being observable, although again, this is without factoring in the existent itself from being a generator of light.

That said, and in theory, this could explain spiritual visons in which a person claims to see something, while others do not, and taking into account of course, that these spiritual entities are themselves a source of light, which is quite compatible with religious teachings.

 

[Dr. Imago]

Heh,

This reminds me of an argument I got over a colleagues screensaver. He had the Linux screen saver that shows a hypercube.

"Do you like it?" he asked, "it's a 3d representation of a 4 dimensional object."
"No it's not" I replied, "It's a 2d representation of a 3d representation of a 4 dimensional object."
"No, no, " he shot back "Look it's 3d you have to imagine the depth".
"Did you hear what you just said?" I returned, "You said you have to imagine the depth. I.e. one of the dimensions, so it's really 2d".
He thought about this for a minute and said "Ha! but we are all traveling through time".
I though about this for a moment and responded in the only reasonable manner, I wiggled his mouse, his spreadsheet reappeard.
"Not anymore" I smirked.

O.

Funny story! Really funny. But, if there and in his place, I probably would've punched you in the mouth.

-TT

 

[exarch]

Originally posted by csense

Originally posted by exarch
The image itself has no thickness.

Yes it does, otherwise, it would only reflect light at right angles to it's surface if it were, truly, two dimensional...in which case, unless the object itself generates light, then you or I would never be able to see it since we would also need to be on a path perpendicular to it's surface, thus blocking the light source and angle of incidence.

In theory, it is possible for a two dimensional object to exist without being observable, although again, this is without factoring in the existent itself from being a generator of light.

That said, and in theory, this could explain spiritual visons in which a person claims to see something, while others do not, and taking into account of course, that these spiritual entities are themselves a source of light, which is quite compatible with religious teachings.

If you quote me, quote me IN CONTEXT please:

Originally posted by exarch
... the photograph, no matter how uneven the surface, doesn't actually have an image layered on top of it. The image itself has no thickness.

Let's try this again, because you obviously missed the point completely:
No, the image has no thickness. The photographic paper has surface texture, and thickness. And if the paper didn't have any surface irregularities it would reflect all incoming light at exactly the same angle. But that is completely beside the point. We're not talking about photographic paper, we're talking about the image that is being formed by light reflecting off of the paper. The image has no more thickness than if it was being displayed on a computer screen or projected on a wall. It's two dimensional, even if the surface it is contained on is not.

This will also clarify my facetious comment about the statue being only a 2d surface.

 

[csense]

It's two dimensional, even if the surface it is contained on is not.

You're making a distinction without a difference here. Think about what you're saying. Think hard.

 

[csense]

Let's try this again, because you obviously missed the point completely:
No, the image has no thickness. The photographic paper has surface texture, and thickness. And if the paper didn't have any surface irregularities it would reflect all incoming light at exactly the same angle.

(emphasis mine)

This is not only absurd, it's a scientific impossibility. Common sense alone could falsify this, since, if I were to walk into my bathroom, I still see the mirror no matter what angle I'm at or what movement I make.

Using your logic, concerning a three dimensional object of course, the mirror would only be visible if one were to view it while in the path of the angle of occurance, what ever angle that may be.

I can assure you that my mirror does not pop in and out of existence as I walk about the room.

 

[exarch]

Originally posted by csense
You're making a distinction without a difference here. Think about what you're saying. Think hard.

Okay, first things first:
Even if the surface of the photographic paper is not perfectly flat, and is in fact a three dimensional object, the image contained on it is two dimensional. It has no depth. Whatever depth is there because of irregularities of the paper only serve to blur and distort the image.

On to your next post ...