Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Is it possible for something to have a negative number of dimensions? Or is that just meaningless? How about imaginary dimensions?

 

The reason I ask is that there seems to be something missing in the table of simplex elements to make a complete Pascal's triangle.

Posted (edited)

Isn't this the same as asking how a line with negative/imaginary length looks...?

Edited by Shadow
Posted

The Lebesgue covering dimension of the empty set is -1.

 

I have also come across people talking about negative dimensions in other contexts, but I have never looked into it. But for sure such an idea exists.

Posted

I found another one:

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Dimension#Negative_dimension

The negative (fractal) dimension is introduced by Benoit Mandelbrot, in which, when it is positive gives the known definition, and when it is negative measures the degree of "emptiness" of empty sets.

 

Hmm, degree of emptiness. Does that mean that some empty sets are more empty than others?

Posted

All I can suggest is read the literature.

 

You should also be aware of supermanifolds where the odd dimensions behave like "negative dimensions" in some formulae. In essence, this is due to the extra minus signs associated with Grassmann odd objects.

Posted

MolecularEnergy (who is banned by the looks of it) is referring to the signifier of the (pseudo)Riemannian metric used in relativity. This is not the "dimension".

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.