My question is a bit different. When is it possible to draw a function? E.g a 4-dimensional vector space is no more imaginable. If we a function from $\mathbb R^2$ to $\mathbb R$, we can draw it 3- dimensional. If we use polar coordinates we could at least draw the codomain in $\mathbb R^2$. So whats the theory behind it ? Until which point can i really visualize it? and when is it no more possible, would appreciate a long answer or at least link to an explanation
2026-03-25 20:42:16.1774471336
Theory of drawing (multivariable) functions (I am new)
58 Views Asked by user626474 https://math.techqa.club/user/user626474/detail At
1
There are 1 best solutions below
Related Questions in CALCULUS
- Equality of Mixed Partial Derivatives - Simple proof is Confusing
- How can I prove that $\int_0^{\frac{\pi}{2}}\frac{\ln(1+\cos(\alpha)\cos(x))}{\cos(x)}dx=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\pi^2}{4}-\alpha^2\right)$?
- Proving the differentiability of the following function of two variables
- If $f ◦f$ is differentiable, then $f ◦f ◦f$ is differentiable
- Calculating the radius of convergence for $\sum _{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{\left(\sqrt{ n^2+n}-\sqrt{n^2+1}\right)^n}{n^2}z^n$
- Number of roots of the e
- What are the functions satisfying $f\left(2\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}\frac{a_i}{3^i}\right)=\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}\frac{a_i}{2^i}$
- Why the derivative of $T(\gamma(s))$ is $T$ if this composition is not a linear transformation?
- How to prove $\frac 10 \notin \mathbb R $
- Proving that: $||x|^{s/2}-|y|^{s/2}|\le 2|x-y|^{s/2}$
Related Questions in ANALYSIS
- Analytical solution of a nonlinear ordinary differential equation
- Finding radius of convergence $\sum _{n=0}^{}(2+(-1)^n)^nz^n$
- Show that $d:\mathbb{C}\times\mathbb{C}\rightarrow[0,\infty[$ is a metric on $\mathbb{C}$.
- conformal mapping and rational function
- What are the functions satisfying $f\left(2\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}\frac{a_i}{3^i}\right)=\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}\frac{a_i}{2^i}$
- Proving whether function-series $f_n(x) = \frac{(-1)^nx}n$
- Elementary question on continuity and locally square integrability of a function
- Proving smoothness for a sequence of functions.
- How to prove that $E_P(\frac{dQ}{dP}|\mathcal{G})$ is not equal to $0$
- Integral of ratio of polynomial
Related Questions in EDUCATION
- Good ideas for communicating the joy of mathematics to nine and ten year olds
- Is method of exhaustion the same as numerical integration?
- How do you prevent being lead astray when you're working on a problem that takes months/years?
- Is there a formula containing index of π (exclude index 1)
- How deep do you have to go before you can contribute to the research frontier
- What are the mathematical topics most essential for an applied mathematician?
- i'm 15 and I really want to start learning calculus, I know geometry, a little trig, and algebra 1 and 2 what is the best way to go about this?
- How to self teach math? (when you have other academic commitments)
- The Ideal First Year Undergraduate Curriculum for a Mathematics Autodidact
- How to solve 1^n=1 for n=0?
Trending Questions
- Induction on the number of equations
- How to convince a math teacher of this simple and obvious fact?
- Find $E[XY|Y+Z=1 ]$
- Refuting the Anti-Cantor Cranks
- What are imaginary numbers?
- Determine the adjoint of $\tilde Q(x)$ for $\tilde Q(x)u:=(Qu)(x)$ where $Q:U→L^2(Ω,ℝ^d$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator and $U$ is a Hilbert space
- Why does this innovative method of subtraction from a third grader always work?
- How do we know that the number $1$ is not equal to the number $-1$?
- What are the Implications of having VΩ as a model for a theory?
- Defining a Galois Field based on primitive element versus polynomial?
- Can't find the relationship between two columns of numbers. Please Help
- Is computer science a branch of mathematics?
- Is there a bijection of $\mathbb{R}^n$ with itself such that the forward map is connected but the inverse is not?
- Identification of a quadrilateral as a trapezoid, rectangle, or square
- Generator of inertia group in function field extension
Popular # Hahtags
second-order-logic
numerical-methods
puzzle
logic
probability
number-theory
winding-number
real-analysis
integration
calculus
complex-analysis
sequences-and-series
proof-writing
set-theory
functions
homotopy-theory
elementary-number-theory
ordinary-differential-equations
circles
derivatives
game-theory
definite-integrals
elementary-set-theory
limits
multivariable-calculus
geometry
algebraic-number-theory
proof-verification
partial-derivative
algebra-precalculus
Popular Questions
- What is the integral of 1/x?
- How many squares actually ARE in this picture? Is this a trick question with no right answer?
- Is a matrix multiplied with its transpose something special?
- What is the difference between independent and mutually exclusive events?
- Visually stunning math concepts which are easy to explain
- taylor series of $\ln(1+x)$?
- How to tell if a set of vectors spans a space?
- Calculus question taking derivative to find horizontal tangent line
- How to determine if a function is one-to-one?
- Determine if vectors are linearly independent
- What does it mean to have a determinant equal to zero?
- Is this Batman equation for real?
- How to find perpendicular vector to another vector?
- How to find mean and median from histogram
- How many sides does a circle have?
A function $f$ from $X$ to $Y$ should for these purposes be thought of as a subset of the Cartesian product of $X$ and $Y$ - that is, if we can first picture $X\times Y$ we can picture $f$ by thinking of it as a "shape" living in $X\times Y$.
The crucial obstacle now is the dimension. If $X=\mathbb{R}^m$ and $Y=\mathbb{R}^n$, then $X\times Y$ is basically the same as $\mathbb{R}^{m+n}$ - this is why trying to graph a function from $\mathbb{R}^2$ to $\mathbb{R}^2$ seems to force one into four-dimensional space.
Changing coordinate systems doesn't really help, unless you adopt a truly evil coordinate system (in which case your picture is ruined anyways): for example, even the shift from rectangular to polar coordinates (contrary to what you seem to claim) keeps the dimension of the plane the same (we still use two numbers to describe a given point). Once $X$ and $Y$ have some reasonable notion of geometry, we've really determined what $X\times Y$ is going to look like, and in particular how complicated it will be. Switching from one "reasonable description" to another won't result in a drastic change, although it may improve some aspects of the picture (e.g. make it easier to figure out the bounds in some integral).
This is all a first step into topology, and more specifically the study of manifolds.