A line has one dimension, and one only. It couldn't care less about whatever you do to it in higher dimensions. That's their problem.

▲

bronlund 4 days ago | parent [-]

Why the downvotes? This is the correct answer to the first question raised: "...how many dimensions does a line have?".

You can track a point to create a line, you can shift the line to make a plane, you can move the plane to create a space, you can change the space to create time, you can observe time to create bliss, you can reflect on bliss to create thought, you can use thought to create an idea and you can use that idea to make a thingy.

You can create as many dimensions you like, all perpendicular to each other - one way or another. But I promise you this; even though the line is needed for the thingy, the line is blissfully unaware of this fact.

▲

nh23423fefe 4 days ago | parent [-]

You seem to want to be "correct" instead of engaging with the article. Do you think Minkowski was ignorant?

	▲	bronlund 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		I'm not criticising Minkowski, I'm criticising the author of the article. He starts out by talking about one dimensional lines, then suddenly jumps to curves as if they could be mistaken for the same thing. And in my humble opinion, it goes downhill from there. He even manage to talk about one dimensional squiggles which is an oxymoron. In one dimension, nothing is squiggly - that is an effect of higher dimensions. That being said, I don't care much for Einstein's relativity or the derived works either. I think Maxwell was on to something and that quantum mechanics more or less agrees with him.