Thank-you. I need your scrutiny. May it continue. — ucarr

:ok:

Are you perhaps talking about, say, an interaction between two hypercubes? — ucarr

No, definitely not, that kinda stuff is above me pay grade mate, but look at the underlined term in your sentence. — Agent Smith

So far I've gotta wild speculation about what you're suggesting here. Could it be you're suggesting cardinality in 4-space is categorically different from what it is in 3-space? Are we looking at a difference such that hypercubes don't proliferate in the same way cubes proliferate?

No, much, much simpler, and it seems you're getting along fine with your rather quaint little project. Forget what I said, it's of no consequence.

I still don't get it. Not the paradox of a set of all sets not members of themselves - that I know. I don;t understand how that applies to 3D configuration trying to contain a 4D configuration. Perhaps you can point me to where Frege conceptualized this particular paradox with 4D and 3D shapes?