[guest39538]

You seem to be struggling with rows and columns in a 3 dimension  space

I'm not struggling, I can count them just fine.
"Rows" That's one dimension.
"Columns" that's two dimensions.

Where are you seeing a third dimension there?
Do you understand that 2 is not 3?
Do you understand that a 2 dimensional thing like a matrix is not a 3 dimensional thing like R3?

You need to move yourself around to the side of the cube, you will see more rows and columns.   

Yes I know the difference between 2d and 3d, however you can't seem to comprehend a 3d matrix.

[Bored chemist]

You need to stop assuming that you are right. It would stop you posting dross like this

You need to move yourself around to the side of the cube, you will see more rows and columns.   

A matrix, by definition is two dimensional.

If you want to try to invent some entity that's a bit like a matrix, but not two dimensional, feel free.
But it will not be a matrix.

Also you will need to invent the laws of maths that go with your new creation.
Frankly I don't think you are clever enough.

however you can't seem to comprehend a 3d matrix.

There is, by definition,  no such thing.
The lack of comprehension is your failure to grasp that.

[alancalverd]

Semantics.

A mathematical matrix is 2-dimensional. You can have any number of dimensions in an array, but only a 2D array can be called a matrix.

In materials science, a matrix has three dimensions.

The Matrix was just bullshit: a pointless plot and some cheap CGI.

[guest39538]

The Matrix was just bullshit: a pointless plot and some cheap CGI.

I am in no way referring to a movie called the Matrix.   I am talking about a material matrix that is 3 dimensional.   The material being whatever is filling the space.
An atom to me is a R³ matrix made up of elements a + b ?

If you want to try to invent some entity that's a bit like a matrix, but not two dimensional, feel free.
But it will not be a matrix.

Also you will need to invent the laws of maths that go with your new creation.
Frankly I don't think you are clever enough.

It is xyz math, what is difficult about that?

[Bored chemist]

It is xyz math, what is difficult about that?

What do you think that means?

[guest39538]

It is xyz math, what is difficult about that?

What do you think that means?

I think that means it is dimensional maths and can also be used for coordinate maths.

[Bored chemist]

Why do you think it helps to post stuff like that?
You have introduced three terms, without explaining what any of them means.
" dimensional maths", " coordinate maths" and ". xyz math".

Since people do maths on 3 dimensional (and huger dimensional) structures with 2 dimensional matrices, why do you think that you need a "matrix" with three dimensions  (in fact something that clearly isn't a matrix)?

No matter what rambling gibberish you post R3 will never be a matrix.

[guest39538]

Why do you think it helps to post stuff like that?
You have introduced three terms, without explaining what any of them means.
" dimensional maths", " coordinate maths" and ". xyz math".

Since people do maths on 3 dimensional (and huger dimensional) structures with 2 dimensional matrices, why do you think that you need a "matrix" with three dimensions  (in fact something that clearly isn't a matrix)?

No matter what rambling gibberish you post R3 will never be a matrix.

But the word Matrix sound so cool.

Ok I accept that it is not a matrix and will only use a R³ space.   

As for the other, I think you are cold reading again, if something is a math about something, i.e dimensions , then that math would be dimensional math or whatever the math is being used for.

[Bored chemist]

Just as a concrete example of why you are wrong, here's something I don't expect you to understand.
The matrix which represents rotation in three dimensions is given here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_matrix#In_three_dimensions

The matrix has two dimensions. It has three rows and three columns.

As for the other, I think you are cold reading again, i

What do you think "cold reading" means?

[guest39538]

Just as a concrete example of why you are wrong, here's something I don't expect you to understand.
The matrix which represents rotation in three dimensions is given here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_matrix#In_three_dimensions

The matrix has two dimensions. It has three rows and three columns.

As for the other, I think you are cold reading again, i

What do you think "cold reading" means?

Can't interpret anything other than the exact,  not having enough ambiguity in your reading to comprehend something with words used in relation to rather than the exact.

[guest39538]

Just as a concrete example of why you are wrong, here's something I don't expect you to understand.
The matrix which represents rotation in three dimensions is given here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_matrix#In_three_dimensions

I understood that because I have used cgi.

[Bored chemist]

Just as a concrete example of why you are wrong, here's something I don't expect you to understand.
The matrix which represents rotation in three dimensions is given here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_matrix#In_three_dimensions

I understood that because I have used cgi.

Then why did you think you needed a three d matrix?

Just as a concrete example of why you are wrong, here's something I don't expect you to understand.
The matrix which represents rotation in three dimensions is given here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_matrix#In_three_dimensions

The matrix has two dimensions. It has three rows and three columns.

As for the other, I think you are cold reading again, i

What do you think "cold reading" means?

Can't interpret anything other than the exact,  not having enough ambiguity in your reading to comprehend something with words used in relation to rather than the exact.

That's interesting.
Now go and look up what it really means.

That's the point.
It's not a problem with my reading.
You just keep using the wrong words.
Why not stop being crap at communication and science, by being a bit more careful and not making up dross?

[guest39538]

Just as a concrete example of why you are wrong, here's something I don't expect you to understand.
The matrix which represents rotation in three dimensions is given here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_matrix#In_three_dimensions

I understood that because I have used cgi.

Then why did you think you needed a three d matrix?

Just as a concrete example of why you are wrong, here's something I don't expect you to understand.
The matrix which represents rotation in three dimensions is given here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_matrix#In_three_dimensions

The matrix has two dimensions. It has three rows and three columns.

As for the other, I think you are cold reading again, i

What do you think "cold reading" means?

Can't interpret anything other than the exact,  not having enough ambiguity in your reading to comprehend something with words used in relation to rather than the exact.

That's interesting.
Now go and look up what it really means.

That's the point.
It's not a problem with my reading.
You just keep using the wrong words.
Why not stop being crap at communication and science, by being a bit more careful and not making up dross?

If one must start to communicate as if having a dictionary shoved up their proverbial backside, then one must stop having fun while learning.  One cannot  make up physical facts, the physical facts govern themselves.
One is hardly making up dross when one is using present information for one's reference.   If one was to not use reference, then one would indeed be making things up.

[Bored chemist]

One cannot  make up physical facts, the physical facts govern themselves.

You made this up

, density is when the space is ''squeezed out of something''.

There are plenty of other examples.

[guest39538]

One cannot  make up physical facts, the physical facts govern themselves.

You made this up

, density is when the space is ''squeezed out of something''.

There are plenty of other examples.

Again Sir , a classic example of my definition of cold reading.  Did you not think to yourself, that maybe something else was meant by this?   As the obvious is space cannot be squeezed.   
In an example of ''your ''cold reading, space is expanding.   That is similar context to me saying the space is squeezed out.  However I accept I could of thought better and worded that differently.  I should of said the more dense an object is , the less space there is between atoms.

[Bored chemist]

Did you not think to yourself, that maybe something else was meant by this?   As the obvious is space cannot be squeezed

It was possible that you meant something other than what you said.
However, you did say it when I asked you to clarify something.
If your  reaction to being asked to explain something it so say something other than what you mean, then I really don't see how you plan to make progress.

I should of said the more dense an object is , the less space there is between atoms.

That wouldn't have made much sense in context.

[Bored chemist]

Here's the context.

What do you think "field density" means?

It means how many different ''parts'' are crammed into one space.    example a   2 cm ²   grid reference [a],    x,y  dimensions

We can fit in the area a 2cm * 2cm square, but if we squash the square making it denser, we can put two 2cm*2cm squares in the same size area.

ok?

[guest39538]

Here's the context.

What do you think "field density" means?

It means how many different ''parts'' are crammed into one space.    example a   2 cm ²   grid reference [a],    x,y  dimensions

We can fit in the area a 2cm * 2cm square, but if we squash the square making it denser, we can put two 2cm*2cm squares in the same size area.

ok?

Dude I know what density is,  just because I can't explain back in my own words very good, that does not mean I do not understand it .

[Bored chemist]

Dude I know what density is,  just because I can't explain back in my own words very good, that does not mean I do not understand it

Two things.
First, the  quotes show you don't understand it. Secondly

Untitled.jpg (218.24 kB . 1200x648 - viewed 3161 times)

[guest39538]

Dude I know what density is,  just because I can't explain back in my own words very good, that does not mean I do not understand it

Two things.
First, the  quotes show you don't understand it. Secondly
 [ Invalid Attachment ]

I could just use the google definition

Density is a measure of mass per unit of volume. ... The average density of an object equals its total mass divided by its total volume. An object made from a comparatively dense material (such as iron) will have less volume than an object of equal mass made from some less dense substance (such as water).