Re:Simple-twitter: A bare-bones Twitter clone implemented in...
by bonoboTP on Friday November 22, 2019 @09:39AM
(#21605902)
> This approach breaks down when you go into higher math.
It doesn't have to be literally visualization. Just some "feeling" for the objects. Some conception of them as actors, actees, things interacting, or having emotions or whatever. Again, whatever works. Maybe some people can work with concepts just based on strictly memorizing the definitions and drilling through proofs, but others need to conceptualize it all into a narrative. I don't mean dumbing it down, but making it easier to "grab" mentally. Hard to describe.
This approach breaks down when you go into higher math. You end up working with these abstract objects that have no visual representation. You may be able to find an equivalent object from geometry or graph theory, but it may be so complicated you could never draw it. Heck, even basic shapes like the Platonic solids are difficult to visualize, let alone draw, correctly.
I solved a problem recently requiring me to count the number of vertex colourings of an icosahedron, up to rotational symmetry. Trying to draw one of these things and visualize all of the possible rotations was basically impossible for me. I ended up loading Blender and playing around with one in 3D, using the coordinate planes to see all the axes of symmetry.
If I had been given a higher dimensional object like a tesseract then all bets would have been off. I would have had to find another approach entirely, likely algebraic.