What Links Dice and Tesseracts? | Machining the Platonic Solids 

TYPICAL

Thank you for having a look at our channel. We hope you enjoy the content!

Nah, the Utah Teapot is too difficult to machine. I prefer Russel's Teapot, I can easily make that on a lathe. What, you don't think I can? You'd better prove it!

@@leftaroundabout who teapots the teapot?

Unless you're Andrew Wiles...

@@mediocrefunkybeat I bet if you ask him whether he can he will state that he cannot.

How about the 5th dimension?

@@gaveintothedarkness I did read hyperspace in the 90's and did a paper on it and while I can see(sense) waves I cannot fathom shapes.

@@noanyobiseniss7462 Actually....I was making a joke. There is a band called 5th dimension and they sing the song "age of aquarius" :P

It wouldn't necessarily appear to be in motion. The easiest way to imagine a tesseract in the 3+1 dimensional space we live in is a cube that appears out of nothing at some point in time and again vanishes into nothing some time later. In that case, at each instant you have a 3-dimensional slice through the 4-dimensional tesseract, and all these slices happen to look the same (in the same way you can slice a cube into a bunch of equal square sheets). However, that means you're missing the actual interesting features of the tesseract. To understand those moving animations, consider that you're slicing a cube diagonally and stamping the cut-section onto 2-dimensional paper. The imprint will in general be an irregular hexagon. Then imagine you're doing this over and over again (slicing lots of cubes in succession), but each time you're cutting in a slightly different direction. The result of this is an animated 2D shape. Now apply the same concept to the 4-dimensional tesseract: you're slicing it diagonally, every time getting a different 3-dimensional object. Those are the objects these animation are showing.

@@leftaroundabout Ah, I see

"Muoctahedron"! Well that led me down a rabbit hole. Wikipedia comes up with "Regular skew apeirohedron". Dear god what's regular about that? I'm sticking to 2D geometery with the odd excursion into 3D. The narration was wonderful, that lass should be on the tellybox.

@@billdoodson4232 If you're interested in these things you might enjoy jan misali's video on regular polyhedra. I find it very amusing and interesting

His voice is just so soothing!!!!!

Agreed.

Couldn’t disagree more. What makes you think this narrator does not know what they are talking about? They were simply transparent about who was doing the machining operations.

Tell me you're a misogynist without telling me you're a misogynist

The other “narrator” would have read the exact same script. I think the delivery was clear and properly paced for the length of the video, perhaps the script was a tad long for the video in the first place.

​@guitarchitectural very overused and misused word.

noice

No one cares.

it's a 6 dimensional ring which won't interact with the 3d chuck