4

The 3rd hypercube is the cube below where planes cover the space in different ways. The 4th hypercube can be considered as many connected 3rd hypercubes. You are interested in planes, the example is from XRD lab related to solid state physics and crystallography.

enter image description here

Hosts such as ArXiv require certain TexLive version such as 2011 where you cannot use newer tools resulting into easy autogenerated pictures like here. You manually convert the pictures to images. For example in the case of TikZ you use \usetikzlibrary{external}\tikzexternalize and then use basic \includegraphics{...} as instructed by yo'. The manual conversion can ensure easier compiling of the future but an extra workflow step, taking time. You want to facilitate easy co-operation with your papers so people can adjust the sources for their research.

Which packages to visualise the planes in hypercubes?

  1. Is it better to build the visualisation codes inside the LaTex document or separately compile the pictures each time when updates?

  2. Is it better to rely on newer packages or older packages to avoid possible dependency problems of the future?

  3. How would you visualise the planes in your recommended package? Is it easy to use that package for higher dimensional cubes? You can consider the higher dimensional cubes in terms of graphs with higher vertex order.

Community
  • 1
hhh
  • 8,743
  • 2
    Is this another question that you are going to answer yourself or is there another reason for not providing a minimal example for our graphical wizards? – Johannes_B Mar 22 '15 at 15:50
  • @Johannes_B Pardon. The picture with four cubes was provided to me "as is" related to XRD lab and I have no clue how it was generated. I feel it may have been generated with some LaTex package such as TikZ, PSTricks and tkz-berge. I have no clue what the best technique is to proceed. – hhh Mar 22 '15 at 15:56
  • Those are pictures that have been around is material science/solid state physics/cristallography books for decades. Though you certainly can do this with TikZ or something else, i doubt that the above was done with it. – Johannes_B Mar 22 '15 at 15:57
  • 1
    For further reading: Miller Index. They can be typeset formally using package miller. – Johannes_B Mar 22 '15 at 16:06
  • 5
    The standard terminology in English for "3rd dimensional hypercube" is "cube". Let's try not to use baffling terminology when there are ordinary English words available. The standard terminology for "hyperplane" in your question is not clear to me; which planes through the vertices are you allowing as "hyperplanes"? – Benjamin McKay Mar 22 '15 at 16:10
  • For a start, maybe take a look at http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/208894/how-might-i-typeset-the-fano-plane-in-latex/208966#208966 – Benjamin McKay Mar 22 '15 at 16:12
  • 1
    Is this an on-topic question preceded by an off-topic one or merely an off-topic one? That is, the issue of why there are not more 'planes' (in whatever sense this is used here) is not a TeX question, and is certainly off-topic. The question about how to visualise 'hyperplanes' might or might not be on-topic. If you are really asking 'what's the best way to visualise them?' it is surely off-topic. If you are asking 'what's the best way to draw such-and-such visualisation of them?' you need to clarify that. – cfr Mar 22 '15 at 22:54
  • @cfr Thank you for your motivating comment, updated and covered more in-depth how I currently change auto-generated pictures such as TikZ pictures to static pictures in preparing documents to hosting. I am very unsure about tools to visualise higher dimensional cubes. I would really appreciate experienced answer here not to choose a bad tool that does not facilitate co-operation. I am trying to keep sources in LaTex but this may be a mistake in more complicated cases, there may be easier ways I am unaware of. – hhh Mar 23 '15 at 13:33
  • 1
    @Johannes_B I've been informed that answering one's own questions is deemed acceptable in this group. –  Mar 23 '15 at 13:39
  • 1
    @MarcvanDongen Yes. But asking them just in order to answer them might be considered less acceptable, especially if they are not asked in a format which facilitates other answers or makes this clear. Certainly if I find a solution to a question after I've asked it, I'd post it. But I wouldn't typically ask a question to which I already had an answer and certainly wouldn't do so without saying that explicitly! – cfr Mar 23 '15 at 18:15
  • 1
    @Marc i have to agree with cfr. A self answer is fine for me. But if it is just for rep hunting, and/or the original question is misleading, it's questionable in my opinion. – Johannes_B Mar 23 '15 at 18:38
  • @Johannes_B The OP is the only one who knows about their intentions. Speculating about them and using this to invalidate their questions does not seem fair to me. –  Mar 24 '15 at 10:55
  • @Marc That wasn't my intention at all, but at the time of writing (and honestly still) i was most confused about what the question is. Right now, the qeustion states 4 (four) questions, the first answer would be any drawing tool you like, including TikZ, MetaPost, PSTricks. http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/20684416#20684416 – Johannes_B Mar 24 '15 at 16:11
  • @Johannes_B Good to hear. –  Mar 25 '15 at 08:20
  • I think this this is still too broad for their to be a reasonable answer. –  Aug 09 '15 at 07:29

0 Answers0