I think you misread that. It means that the title is technically correct but relies on a different definition of the term 'dimension', not that the title is wrong.
What about, "The amazing connectivity of the human brain", or "Researchers unravel the mathematics of connections in the human brain"?
There's absolutely no need to confuse readers by conflating unrelated concepts.
I could make up my own definition of dimension, e.g. the dimension of a manifold needed to embed some bizarre variety with some cleverly defined homological correspondence to slices of brain material I looked at under the microscope, thought of as simplices. I might then get 276 dimensions. Do I then get a press release for this? It's utterly meaningless. "Mathematician discovers that our brains live in a 276 dimensional universe".
Except it clearly does, using the definition of the mathematics used to analyse connections.
> I could make up my own definition of dimension, e.g. the dimension of a manifold needed to embed some bizarre variety with some cleverly defined homological correspondence to slices of brain material I looked at under the microscope, thought of as simplices. I might then get 276 dimensions. Do I then get a press release for this? It's utterly meaningless
Just because we can make up words, all words that have different meanings in different contexts, are meaningless? I agree that perhaps not enough context was provided, but to say that the words itself do not have a certain meaning because you misunderstood the context in which it's used is ludicrous.
The world does not revolve around you.
>The world does not revolve around you.
The GP was quite careful to speak from the standpoint of a reader from a general audience. A work of writing does in fact revolve around its audience.
So was I, otherwise I wouldn't have said:
> I agree that perhaps not enough context was provided, but to say that the words itself do not have a certain meaning because you misunderstood the context in which it's used is ludicrous.
Regardless,
> The definition of a word derives from the mutually understood definition of the word between the author and the reader.
Of course, and the word is defined in the article. So if the reader had actually read the article given, rather than just commenting on the title, then they wouldn't have been confused.
So are we trying to raise or lower the quality of public discourse? If a journalist uses a technical term in a headline, and then goes on to explain what the term means in the article, how is that not fine? It sounds like you only want journalists talking at a eighth grade level.
Why don't you try to re-write the findings yourself then? I think you'll find it difficult to say the least. Your first obstacle might be finding a better word to describe the mathematical shape of the structures other than 'dimension'. That's what mathematicians use, why can't journalists use it too?
“We're used to thinking of the world from a 3-D perspective,”
Here 3-D clearly refers to our three spatial dimensions, and the article clearly abuses this definition of the term to contrast with the totally different meaning of “dimension” that is to come.
It’s fine to use non-intuitive mathematical definitions in a work for a non-expert audience, but you must clearly define them from the start — and not lead the audience astray by deliberately referencing the most common definition to form a contrast at the start of your piece.
The title was likely picked to be confusing on purpose as click-bait. Misleading headlines lower the quality of public discourse.
Misleading headlines only affect people who have not read the article. People who have not read the article, or can't bother to read the article, are essentially incapable of giving a proper high-quality response to the article.
I don't see how you can lower the quality of discourse any further than someone commenting on an article that they didn't read.
The article itself also continues to conflate the definitions of dimension by referring to 3-D. When little timmy draws a star on his paper we don't say "congrats on your 5 dimensional drawing".
Right, so don't waste other people's time by commenting on an article that you haven't properly read.
I don't wee where the term is ever very clearly explained, the best I see is:
>> the number of neurons in a clique would lead to its size as a high-dimensional geometric object (a mathematical dimensional concept, not a space-time one)
It is a "network topology" concept, the distinction between "mathematical" and "space-time" is nonsensical.
> That's what mathematicians use, why can't journalists use it too?
Not only is the term poorly explained, but it also appears to be used incorrectly. I don't think it is correct to talk about these structures being created in 11 dimensions, but that as "with 11 dimensions", "having a dimension of 11" or "being 11-dimensional" (which is how the term is used in the paper).
> It sounds like you only want journalists talking at a eighth grade level.
The problem is that the article is talking at about a 8th grade level using collegiate terms that it doesn't take the time to explain at at an 8th grade level. This doesn't help to elevate public discourse, it just sows misunderstanding.
> Why don't you try to re-write the findings yourself then? I think you'll find it difficult to say the least.
This seems needlessly combative.
In terms of accurate and responsible reporting of this science, I think the article that the author cites and paraphrases heavily is much more well written: https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-06/f-bbt060617....
If a marketing team uses a financial term in a commercial with an asterisk, and then goes on to explain what the term with an asterisk means in the actual 117 pages long financial contract this commercial is trying to sell, how is that not fine?
I think you probably object because "11 dimensions" sounds a lot like the 11 temporal dimensions of in certain space-time related theories. But this is a completely unrelated set of dimensions.
The article describes what are most definitely dimensions, but ... of the array sort, and not of the String Theory sort.