I think for maximum uselessness, they should not be overlapping spheres, but deform at the interface, like soap bubbles or rubber balls. As long as the spheres are the same size and modelled with the same "surface tension" or "elasticity", the "intersection" of two sets would then be a circular interface with an area proportional to what would otherwise be an overlap (I think). If the spheres have different sizes or are modelled with different surface tension or elasticity, one would "intrude" into the other.
Multiple sets would have increasingly complex shapes that may or not also create volumes external to the deformed spheres but still surrounded by the various interfaces.
Time to break out the mathematics of bubbles and foam. This data ain't gonna obscure itself!
Might there actually be utility to something like this? Scrunch the spheres together but make invisible everything that is not an interface and label the faces accordingly. I suppose the same could be said of the shape described by overlapping. (Jesus, you'd think I was high or something. Just riffing.)
(Jesus, you'd think I was high or something. Just riffing.)
I am, maybe that's why I made it all the way down here ;).
Might there actually be utility to something like this? Scrunch the spheres together but make invisible everything that is not an interface and label the faces accordingly.
What if the labels of the faces on the 3D (pressure points or interfaces) were like things that kept the 'soap bubbles' from merging? Like for example: science watchers of MSM being kept from understanding climate change
Is that what you were thinking?
No, that's not what I was thinking, but that sounds like a decent idea. Maybe a better idea than just simple labels representing the facing sphere.
i like big graphs and i can not lie
all about that x and y
though when the venn diagram seems to deny
an z axis I sigh
