0
$\begingroup$

I was just wondering how accurate the following is in regard to dimensions and Torus Rings:

"Math dimensions are a representation of the objects. An object’s dimensions do not automatically equal the mathematical models of dimensions. The experts tell us that the representation has properties that are different from the properties of the object itself. If we are looking at only the top surface of the paperflat diagram of a Torus Ring then we can see it as two-space-dimensional. However, it can also be seen as three-space-dimensional, as having height. Within the magical mathematical models, a paperflat plane diagram that is two-space-dimensional can be inside of a three-dimensional space. In math, there are ways to make a Torus Ring four-dimensional. The embedding of S1 in the plane produces a geometric object called the Clifford Torus, which has a surface that is four-space-dimensional. Otherwise, we have another possible dimension of time." What can be changed to make it more accurate or clear?

  • 1
    Where is the quote from? It doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense, but perhaps there's a context that salvages it. – 2017-02-01
  • 0
    The ways to make a "Torus Ring" four-dimenional and the "Clifford Torus" produced by an embedding of $S^1$ in the plane sound like interesting instances of the higher hogwash. Please give a reference. – 2017-02-01
  • 0
    Hi Rob. wiki says that. ; ) – 2017-02-03
  • 0
    Or does it? "In topology, a ring torus is homeomorphic to the Cartesian product of two circles: S1 × S1, and the latter is taken to be the definition in that context. It is a compact 2-manifold of genus 1. The ring torus is one way to embed this space into three-dimensional Euclidean space, but another way to do this is the Cartesian product of the embedding of S1 in the plane. This produces a geometric object called the Clifford torus, a surface in 4-space." – 2017-02-03

0 Answers 0