From: PointedEars@web.de   
      
   Chris M. Thomasson wrote:   
   > On 1/5/2026 3:47 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:   
   >> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:   
   >>> On 1/5/2026 3:09 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:   
   >>>> Say to explain a 3d point in time we need (x, y, z, t), t for time.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> For a 4d point we need (x, y, z, w, t), t for time.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> t is in every dimension?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> For a 2d (x, y, t)   
   >>>>   
   >>>> For a 1d (x, t)   
   >>>   
   >>> Why not keep time in the dimension, [...]   
   >>   
   >> Again, this wording does not make sense.  Time, here represented by the   
   >> coordinate t, *is* a dimension then *implicitly*.   
   >>   
   >   
   > Yeah. Well, fwiw, in my vector field sometimes I would encode the mass   
   > for a point in the vector itself:   
      
   *Physically* that does not make a lot of sense, although one could argue   
   that the mass of a _point-like object_ that is initially _at_ a point of   
   (3D) space and subsequently perhaps found _at_ different points of that   
   space (which is what you *actually* mean) is a degree of freedom.   
      
   The physics would be better represented computationally by defining a   
   point-like object as an _object_ (using object-oriented programming, or   
   something equivalent like a C-struct) with at least two   
   properties/attributes: its position, given as a vector/array/list, and,   
   separately, its mass.   
      
   > vec4 = point (x, y, z, m) where m is the pass of the point. It can see   
   > how it can get confusing. When I would plot the points I would take the   
   > vec3 out of it so:   
   >   
   > vec3 m0 = point   
      
   Which programming language is that?   
      
   > where m0 equals the (x, y, z) components of point.   
      
   That appears to me to be a bad (because confusing, and not self-explaining)   
   choice of variable identifier as well.  I would call that variable "coords"   
   (for "coordinates") or "position" instead.   
      
   > https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=1218640825961580&set=pcb.   
   218640912628238   
   >   
   > (btw can you see the content of the link? thanks. It should be public.)   
      
   I can see it fully when I am logged in into Facebook.  Otherwise I can see   
   it only partially as Facebook's "Log in or sign up for Facebook ..." bar   
   covers the bottom of it.   
      
   Unfortunately, the photos are slightly blurred so one cannot see the images   
   clearly and cannot scan the QR code.   
      
   The images by you for the content of the AMS 2025 Calendar are nicely done.   
   What exactly am I looking at there?  (I found   
   )   
      
   --   
   PointedEars   
      
   Twitter: @PointedEars2   
   Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)