2D/3D

From the Comments to yesterday’s post about the two- vs. three dimension concepts came this, from Reader Harry (no relation):

Vertical projects (buildings, towers) do have 3 dimensions. They are described as vertical projects, even though their height does not always exceed their length or width.
Horizontal projects (roads, airfields) also have 3 dimensions. They are described as horizontal projects, even though their length does not always exceed their height or width.

I understand that perfectly, especially when viewed in Platonic terms.  You may call a table a “quadripod eating-surface”, but that does not negate its “table-ness”, which exists outside any definition.

A road, almost by definition, needs no thickness — it is a line that connects a starting point and a destination, and thus requires no third dimension.  (This is not true in Britishland, however, where a road can start in the middle of nowhere, meander all over the countryside and then just expire — probably out of sheer exhaustion — never having reached an actual destination.  And one may still encounter traffic jams on said roads because while they are theoretically bi-directional, their width is usually less than that of a single car — thus proving the statement that a line may have length but not width.)

Because buildings have no ending point (projecting upwards into thin air), they must have a third dimension.  A wall cannot exist without thickness — even when joined to the ceiling.  (Just because you need only two of its dimensions when hanging a picture, for example, doesn’t mean it needn’t have a third, as a moment’s thought will show.)

And now I need to quit, because I’m starting to get a headache.

Priceless Scandi

Oh yeah, baby

Finland Anti-Lockdown Convoy Hits Helsinki

Helsinki saw dozens of motor vehicles clog its streets on Friday evening, sparked by the nation’s lockdown rules, as well as the rising cost of fuel in the country.

Police initially tried to stifle the protest before it occurred, implementing a ban on heavy goods vehicles — a class which includes a wide variety of trucks — without a permit from the city centre.

That’s excellent news.  But here’s my absolute favorite part:

However, according to a report from Finnish public broadcaster Yle Uutiset, this did not stop the protest from going ahead, with dozens of vehicles, including motor homes, cars, vans, and at least one mobile sauna, streaming into the city centre for the demonstration.

A mobile sauna?   The only way this shindig could have been more Finnish was if Mika Häkonnen had been part of the parade, riding a reindeer.

Bravo, ystäväni.

My Difficult Choices

…from yesterday’s post about driving around the Virginia International Raceway:

Group A:  2009 Wiesmann Roadster

Are you kidding me?  A German V10 in a custom-built luxury sports car?  Vroom, vroom.

Group B:  1995 Aston Martin DB7

Never driven an A-M… time to do so.

Group C:  1985 Lancia Delta S4

Better than the Stratos?  I’d need to judge for myself…

Group D: 1975 BMW 3.0 CSL
Not even close.  One of the best cars BMW ever made.

Group E:   1967 Iso Grifo 350 GL
American engine, Italian styling.  Also, not even close.

Group F: 1955 Fiat 8V Zagato
Let’s see:  four-time winner of the Euro Sports Car championship, a snarling 2-liter V8 engine… what was the question, again?

Next Sunday will feature yet another series of difficult choices.  I rather like this game.

Wait A Minute

So we have this breathless headline:

MIT scientists filed two patents on a new, 2D material that’s stronger than steel

Ummm… I always thought that two dimensions (length and width) mean that in mathematical and scientific terms the figure has no thickness — no matter how thin, the third dimension must exist for the figure to have substance — otherwise, it’s just a drawing.

And the explanation in the article doesn’t help:

“Instead of making a spaghetti-like molecule, we can make a sheet-like molecular plane, where we get molecules to hook themselves together in two dimensions,” said Strano, in the MIT blog post. “This mechanism happens spontaneously in solution, and after we synthesize the material, we can easily spin-coat thin films that are extraordinarily strong.”

It doesn’t matter if the third dimension (of the “thin film”) is only a trillionth of a micron thick, or the thickness of a molecule, it’s still >0.

Is this some kind of new math, or did somebody send out a memo redefining the dimensions?

I’m relying on a Reader Of Greater Brain than I to explain this to me.