https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/LEGO-kom...
83 karma · joined November 20, 2017
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/LEGO-kom...
I'd love to see them smoothly animated.
And it seems that John Tromp's diagrams originate from David C. Keenan's Mockingbird (1996),
and Bubble Notation comes from Wayne Citrin's Visual Expressions (1995)
Example: https://bntre.github.io/visual-lambda/#workspace=H4sIAAAAAAA...
John Tromp's Lambda Diagrams (via 2swap): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcVA8Nj6HEo&t=1346s
Bubble Notation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRgu8S3Pnb8
(Alt + mouse wheel changes the eye distance)
I assume this is your album: https://fabianvallon.bandcamp.com/album/a-different-path-for...
Was xenharmlib used in it, or some other software?
https://github.com/bntre/cs-rationals/blob/master/RationalsE...
Demo piece: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_x4vtS_I7w
Maybe these methods could be combined somehow, but it seems simpler to use subdivision (as also mentioned in that thread) — perhaps selectively, for objects near the periphery where distortion is strongest.
When I think in that direction, it seems more appropriate not to add spatial dimensions (like 4D), but to add animation to your method (shifting or rotating the original composed object). That might help an untrained viewer better understand the usefulness of the final projection.
Unfortunately, I couldn’t quite grasp the method you’re describing — perhaps I’m missing some illustrations. (By the way, links [2] and [3] seem to point to the same video, and I’m not sure they match your description.)
It sounds like you’re suggesting a way to slice objects into almost-repetitive sections, so the brain can reconstruct a fuller picture — a bit like how compound eyes work in insects.
I've heard of true 3D bump mapping being done in fragment shaders (not just lighting), but I can't really imagine how more radical geometric distortion could be implemented there.
I once tried a cross-eye 4D view: https://github.com/bntre/40-js
What this transformation does give me is a way to imagine a closed, finite 3D space, where any path you follow eventually loops back to where you started (like a stickman walking on the surface of a globe). Whether or not that space “really” needs a 4th spatial dimension is less important than the intuition it gives: this curved embedding helps us visualize what a positively curved 3D universe might feel like from the inside.
You could project from 5D down to 3D, but the dimensional mismatch breaks the bijection - you'd lose information or overlap points. However, a 4D → 5D → 4D projection would preserve structure, though it gets harder to visualize.
I chose 3D ↔ 4D specifically because curved 3D space is much more intuitive and has direct physical meaning - it corresponds to positively curved space (see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe#Universe... )