is it possible to draw a four dimensional figure?
452168
Sure, why not.  I have a map that tells elevation and is color-coded for the geologic age of the exposed rocks.  That's four dimensions.
570894
Well on this planet the answer is NO,  Mammals (including people) only have two arms and two legs as a maximum, however as you said it is a Si-Fi drawing, then you can make it look like whatever you want, the limit is your imagination.
683015
It actually becomes trivial at other dimensions.\n\nConsider 1 dimension, or basically a line. This space can be colored in 2 colors. One just alternates the two colors on the line.\n\nConsider 3 dimensions, or our normal space. Imagine a stack of cat food cans as high as you want. Next imagine that each can has a very long chop stick glued to it, and the stick and can are the same color. If the can is sitting flat on the ground, the stick will be straight up in the air - or perpendicular to the lids.\n\nStack the cans so that the sticks all ring around the cans, so that every can's stick touches every other can. Because each can/stick pair is one color, and each stick touches every other stick, in 3-space, you may need a unique color for each entity.\n\nBack to 2-dimensions for a moment.\n\nColoring a planar graph with 5 colors is fairly trival proof in graph theory.\n\n3 colors is never sufficient. Consider a graph where three nodes are all touching a central fourth node. You'll definitely need 4 colors for that.\n\nHowever, in order to determine whether any graph is colorable in 3 colors or not is not easy. In fact it's NP-Complete. Believe me I know. I struggled over that as a homework problem in complexity theory in graduate about 20 years ago. I think I still remember how to prove it.
8681
What you need is either a program like paint shop pro, or some such graphics program? not totally sure, but good luck anyways:D\n\nR3dm0
183005
Alot of people pinned down 4 dimensions pretty good, but nobody has explained the dimensions beyond 4 very well, except to say that they exist. Let me take a shot:\n\nOPE did the best job of explaining the first 4 dimensions, I'll summarize and then move into the other ones.\n\n0D: Imagine a point, the smallest little dot with no length. There is only one point in this dimension, 0.\n1D: Imagine a line that can have any length in 1 direction but no length in any other direction. We can describe a point on this line with one coordinate, x.\n2D: Imagine a sheet of paper that is infinitely thin (you hold it sideways you see nothing). We can locate a point on this plane by (x,y).\n3D: This one's easy. You find a point in 3D space by (x,y,z)\n4D: Harder. In 3D, your point cannot change. You cannot move around because in order to change position you need one more dimension, time. For a point to move from one place to another (dx,dy,dz) it requires a change in time (dt). To locate this point now you need to define its position as (x,y,z,t) or else you won't find it. If you imagine your point is a person you want to meet, you would have to be told where in space (x,y,z) they will be and when (t) they will be there, or else you are not guaranteed to find them (unless you both have cell phones).\n5D: The hardest. Go back to 0D (a single point). If we were able to shrink down to the size of this point, instead of seeing a point, we would see a tiny circle. So if you were trying to locate a point in 5D, you could not locate it exactly unless you placed it in (x,y,z,t) and w, it's location on that circle. So you now have (w,x,y,z,t). The radius of this 5th dimension is so small that we can't see it, but we should be able to perceive its effects when our technology improves. It makes a lot of sense mathematically because it explains why we can't explain gravity at tiny (quantum) levels. The math doesn't work unless we add dimensions and wrap strings around them. Note that dimensions 5 and up have a property called compactification. That means that anything operating on the compactified radii of these dimensions moves in a complete circle, always returning to its original position. The radii are so small that we cannot percieve a change in position at all; a particle changing position along one of these dimensions seems to not move to us.\n6D and up: Very hard to imagine. Your point can now be found on two circles. The easier way to think of this is a point on the surface of a sphere, which will give it two coordinates on a tiny round surface (like longitude and latitude on the Earth's surface). Now you can add as many compactified dimensions as mathematics permits given whatever theories you are trying to incorporate. Your compactified radii can be given upper and lower limits to allow them to be plausible.\n\nI saw some people say infinite dimensions and another say 27. The reigning theory has 11 dimensions. 27 dimensions comes from a part of string theory that claims that matter does not exist and that there exists a fantasy particle with very strange properties, called a tachyon. This theory ties in to the most prominent theory, M-theory, which says only 11 dimensions is needed to explain everything.
987754
Actually the only way it would be possible is if you use Elliptic or Riemannian geometry, and would require a manifold.  A representation of such a construct would be similar to drawing a 4 dimensional shape in 3 or even 2 dimensions.\n\nEuclidian geometry doesn't allow triangles with a sum of all angles to be greater than 180 degrees.
859983
um....no.  We can't readily draw on here.  Second, how can we summarize our drawings, if we can't draw on here.  There are a lot of websites that talk about the 4 main network topologies.  I suggest you search for star, bus, token ring, mesh.
829866
You can try the Smartdraw software free, just not sure if you can print it if you don't buy it after designing it. (Don't know what their "free trial" offers...)\n\nAlso, Google has SketchUp that may work for you, but not sure how good it is as I have never tried it.\n\nAnd Bob Vila's website has useful tools and software that will help you with this.
749059
It's depicted as planes, but it really is 4-dimensional. It's a lot of planes, in different positions.\n\nI can guess that the 4th dimension is chaotic... that means that the slightest movement in the 4th dimensions can make you wind up somewhere completely different, sort of like a fractal.
341427
photoshop is a good one!\n\nand as for the detail, there are thousands of forum where u can get step by step illustration
639156
why not? even if you cant draw, there are sites that use comic makers, like this:\nhttp://www.stripgenerator.com/
316891
the only software that may work is Poser and I don't even know if it's still around it's been awhile since I've even looked at it. It's a simple 3d modelling and is very basic and doesn't really look that great. \n\nI would suggest that you find somebody who is good at drawing and see if they may be interested in working with you on it.
400474
yes we can draw 3d picture in graph\nstep1: draw x,y,z axis\nstep:2 locate the points  for what u has to draw .location can be done similsr to x,y mappings like(0,1,2),(1,1,3) etc......................\nstep :3 hence a 3d pic formed but no 3d effects on graph
662178
Any line you can make in this physical Universe is 3-dimensional.  A drawing has a 3rd dimension - no surface is ideal, and there has to be something beyond this surface.\nIf you draw a line, it is also 3-dimensional (otherwise, you would not see it - it would be infinitely thin, and if it is not, it is a rectangle on an uneven surface).\n\nIf you ask whether truly 1-D or 2-D objects can exist in our Universe, there is an answer: no and yes.\n\nNO for macroscopic objects: the reason is that there is a minimum unit of space: Planck length. Therefore, you may think of all non-elementary objects in this Universe as being at least 1 Planck length thick in all 3 dimensions.  \nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length\n\nYES for elementary particles. They are viewed either as zero-dimension (points) or one-dimension (strings, with the size of - I think you guessed it - Planck length).\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory
715983
There are "levels" to dimensioning.\n\nThe major dimensions are the overall height, width, depth of the whole object.  \n\nThe next level down will sub-divide that major dimension to describe sub-components.\n\nAs example:  Consider a house plan.  \n*  From one extreme side to the other extreme side is a MAJOR dimension (the overall width).  \n*  In between those extreme outer wall edges are interior walls that need to be located as well.  So the next layer of dimensions (MINOR) still goes from one side to the other but pulls lots of dimensions from lots of walls.  \n*  Also, there are porches, corners for inset windows, etc  Another MINOR level picks up those points.\n*  And so on.\n\nIn your 3D drawing: \n*  you only have 6 MAJOR dimensions to a cube shape anyway.  Depending on how you rotate the drawing object, you see 3 of them and 3 will be hidden (back side).\n.
955988
Well, almost every engineered product such as cars and bridges and rockets and even iPods require drawings to show how they're going to be made.  Even for 3D objects, those drawings are still largely 2D, and 2D geometry is indispensible in the development of those 2D drawings.  This is true even for computer workstations that work with 3D representation of products, because all the cross sections are still 2D, and engineers need those cross sections to help with the analysis.
865909
Use clay and then you'll be able to form the 3d shapes