if we flatten a bug, the end result is slightly abstract but we can still identify the bug and features
I believe that you’re thinking of squishing a bug. But that’s a very lossy projection. In its 2D state you only look at the topmost portion of the bug, which is recognizable. But you’re choosing to ignore the infinitely many points that make up all the other layers of the bug. If you had to put them somewhere, too, the resulting picture would be very hard to make sense of.
I’m including all the “goo”. all the internal organs will be spread out, and even though they won’t be near the original place, they’ll still maintain lots of proximity relations.
I’m not using it as a perfect example. but as an example that a volumetric 2d projection could maintain positional information, rather than information getting scrambled.
unless gpt fucked up (I do data science, this is far beyond my skills), this is what a sphere in a Hilbert projection looks like:
might be better to use a volume filling surface rather than a volume filling line
I believe that you’re thinking of squishing a bug. But that’s a very lossy projection. In its 2D state you only look at the topmost portion of the bug, which is recognizable. But you’re choosing to ignore the infinitely many points that make up all the other layers of the bug. If you had to put them somewhere, too, the resulting picture would be very hard to make sense of.
I’m including all the “goo”. all the internal organs will be spread out, and even though they won’t be near the original place, they’ll still maintain lots of proximity relations.
I’m not using it as a perfect example. but as an example that a volumetric 2d projection could maintain positional information, rather than information getting scrambled.
unless gpt fucked up (I do data science, this is far beyond my skills), this is what a sphere in a Hilbert projection looks like:
might be better to use a volume filling surface rather than a volume filling line