Theory of drawing (multivariable) functions (I am new)












1












$begingroup$


My question is a bit different. When is it possible to draw a function? E.g a 4-dimensional vector space is no more imaginable. If we a function from $mathbb R^2$ to $mathbb R$, we can draw it 3- dimensional. If we use polar coordinates we could at least draw the codomain in $mathbb R^2$. So whats the theory behind it ? Until which point can i really visualize it? and when is it no more possible, would appreciate a long answer or at least link to an explanation






calculus analysis education







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Can you clarify what you mean by "If we use polarcoordinates we could at least draw the Codomain in R^2."?
    $endgroup$
    – Noah Schweber
    Dec 16 '18 at 19:45










  • $begingroup$
    i am talking about parametric equation. the codamain can be drawn on a plane.
    $endgroup$
    – Ömer F. Yi
    Dec 16 '18 at 19:51






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You can do that with rectangular coordinates too. Can you give me an example of a function you need polar coordinates to draw?
    $endgroup$
    – Noah Schweber
    Dec 16 '18 at 19:53










  • $begingroup$
    polar coordinates are not what im asking for. this was only an example. to answer your question e^ix.
    $endgroup$
    – Ömer F. Yi
    Dec 16 '18 at 20:07










  • $begingroup$
    But that's no easier to draw in polar than rectangular (assuming $x$ is allowed to be an arbitrary complex number).
    $endgroup$
    – Noah Schweber
    Dec 16 '18 at 20:21
















1












$begingroup$


My question is a bit different. When is it possible to draw a function? E.g a 4-dimensional vector space is no more imaginable. If we a function from $mathbb R^2$ to $mathbb R$, we can draw it 3- dimensional. If we use polar coordinates we could at least draw the codomain in $mathbb R^2$. So whats the theory behind it ? Until which point can i really visualize it? and when is it no more possible, would appreciate a long answer or at least link to an explanation






calculus analysis education







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Can you clarify what you mean by "If we use polarcoordinates we could at least draw the Codomain in R^2."?
    $endgroup$
    – Noah Schweber
    Dec 16 '18 at 19:45










  • $begingroup$
    i am talking about parametric equation. the codamain can be drawn on a plane.
    $endgroup$
    – Ömer F. Yi
    Dec 16 '18 at 19:51






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You can do that with rectangular coordinates too. Can you give me an example of a function you need polar coordinates to draw?
    $endgroup$
    – Noah Schweber
    Dec 16 '18 at 19:53










  • $begingroup$
    polar coordinates are not what im asking for. this was only an example. to answer your question e^ix.
    $endgroup$
    – Ömer F. Yi
    Dec 16 '18 at 20:07










  • $begingroup$
    But that's no easier to draw in polar than rectangular (assuming $x$ is allowed to be an arbitrary complex number).
    $endgroup$
    – Noah Schweber
    Dec 16 '18 at 20:21














1












1








1





$begingroup$


My question is a bit different. When is it possible to draw a function? E.g a 4-dimensional vector space is no more imaginable. If we a function from $mathbb R^2$ to $mathbb R$, we can draw it 3- dimensional. If we use polar coordinates we could at least draw the codomain in $mathbb R^2$. So whats the theory behind it ? Until which point can i really visualize it? and when is it no more possible, would appreciate a long answer or at least link to an explanation






calculus analysis education







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




My question is a bit different. When is it possible to draw a function? E.g a 4-dimensional vector space is no more imaginable. If we a function from $mathbb R^2$ to $mathbb R$, we can draw it 3- dimensional. If we use polar coordinates we could at least draw the codomain in $mathbb R^2$. So whats the theory behind it ? Until which point can i really visualize it? and when is it no more possible, would appreciate a long answer or at least link to an explanation






calculus analysis education




calculus analysis education






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Dec 16 '18 at 19:59









Andrei

13.1k21230




13.1k21230










asked Dec 16 '18 at 19:34









Ömer F. YiÖmer F. Yi

114




114












  • $begingroup$
    Can you clarify what you mean by "If we use polarcoordinates we could at least draw the Codomain in R^2."?
    $endgroup$
    – Noah Schweber
    Dec 16 '18 at 19:45










  • $begingroup$
    i am talking about parametric equation. the codamain can be drawn on a plane.
    $endgroup$
    – Ömer F. Yi
    Dec 16 '18 at 19:51






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You can do that with rectangular coordinates too. Can you give me an example of a function you need polar coordinates to draw?
    $endgroup$
    – Noah Schweber
    Dec 16 '18 at 19:53










  • $begingroup$
    polar coordinates are not what im asking for. this was only an example. to answer your question e^ix.
    $endgroup$
    – Ömer F. Yi
    Dec 16 '18 at 20:07










  • $begingroup$
    But that's no easier to draw in polar than rectangular (assuming $x$ is allowed to be an arbitrary complex number).
    $endgroup$
    – Noah Schweber
    Dec 16 '18 at 20:21


















  • $begingroup$
    Can you clarify what you mean by "If we use polarcoordinates we could at least draw the Codomain in R^2."?
    $endgroup$
    – Noah Schweber
    Dec 16 '18 at 19:45










  • $begingroup$
    i am talking about parametric equation. the codamain can be drawn on a plane.
    $endgroup$
    – Ömer F. Yi
    Dec 16 '18 at 19:51






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You can do that with rectangular coordinates too. Can you give me an example of a function you need polar coordinates to draw?
    $endgroup$
    – Noah Schweber
    Dec 16 '18 at 19:53










  • $begingroup$
    polar coordinates are not what im asking for. this was only an example. to answer your question e^ix.
    $endgroup$
    – Ömer F. Yi
    Dec 16 '18 at 20:07










  • $begingroup$
    But that's no easier to draw in polar than rectangular (assuming $x$ is allowed to be an arbitrary complex number).
    $endgroup$
    – Noah Schweber
    Dec 16 '18 at 20:21
















$begingroup$
Can you clarify what you mean by "If we use polarcoordinates we could at least draw the Codomain in R^2."?
$endgroup$
– Noah Schweber
Dec 16 '18 at 19:45




$begingroup$
Can you clarify what you mean by "If we use polarcoordinates we could at least draw the Codomain in R^2."?
$endgroup$
– Noah Schweber
Dec 16 '18 at 19:45












$begingroup$
i am talking about parametric equation. the codamain can be drawn on a plane.
$endgroup$
– Ömer F. Yi
Dec 16 '18 at 19:51




$begingroup$
i am talking about parametric equation. the codamain can be drawn on a plane.
$endgroup$
– Ömer F. Yi
Dec 16 '18 at 19:51




1




1




$begingroup$
You can do that with rectangular coordinates too. Can you give me an example of a function you need polar coordinates to draw?
$endgroup$
– Noah Schweber
Dec 16 '18 at 19:53




$begingroup$
You can do that with rectangular coordinates too. Can you give me an example of a function you need polar coordinates to draw?
$endgroup$
– Noah Schweber
Dec 16 '18 at 19:53












$begingroup$
polar coordinates are not what im asking for. this was only an example. to answer your question e^ix.
$endgroup$
– Ömer F. Yi
Dec 16 '18 at 20:07




$begingroup$
polar coordinates are not what im asking for. this was only an example. to answer your question e^ix.
$endgroup$
– Ömer F. Yi
Dec 16 '18 at 20:07












$begingroup$
But that's no easier to draw in polar than rectangular (assuming $x$ is allowed to be an arbitrary complex number).
$endgroup$
– Noah Schweber
Dec 16 '18 at 20:21




$begingroup$
But that's no easier to draw in polar than rectangular (assuming $x$ is allowed to be an arbitrary complex number).
$endgroup$
– Noah Schweber
Dec 16 '18 at 20:21










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















0












$begingroup$

A function $f$ from $X$ to $Y$ should for these purposes be thought of as a subset of the Cartesian product of $X$ and $Y$ - that is, if we can first picture $Xtimes Y$ we can picture $f$ by thinking of it as a "shape" living in $Xtimes Y$.



The crucial obstacle now is the dimension. If $X=mathbb{R}^m$ and $Y=mathbb{R}^n$, then $Xtimes Y$ is basically the same as $mathbb{R}^{m+n}$ - this is why trying to graph a function from $mathbb{R}^2$ to $mathbb{R}^2$ seems to force one into four-dimensional space.



Changing coordinate systems doesn't really help, unless you adopt a truly evil coordinate system (in which case your picture is ruined anyways): for example, even the shift from rectangular to polar coordinates (contrary to what you seem to claim) keeps the dimension of the plane the same (we still use two numbers to describe a given point). Once $X$ and $Y$ have some reasonable notion of geometry, we've really determined what $Xtimes Y$ is going to look like, and in particular how complicated it will be. Switching from one "reasonable description" to another won't result in a drastic change, although it may improve some aspects of the picture (e.g. make it easier to figure out the bounds in some integral).



This is all a first step into topology, and more specifically the study of manifolds.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    a brilliant answer. so for example R^2 to R^2 is no more possible to draw for us as it is 4 dimensional. So all the things are a bit complicated if you abstract the knowledge and the whole aspect of drawing function becomes very difficult when talking about manifolds ?
    $endgroup$
    – Ömer F. Yi
    Dec 16 '18 at 20:10










  • $begingroup$
    can i say that DOUBLE integral of f(x,y) dx dy is same as integral f(x)dx * integral f(y) dy genereally ? And another question is i have seen in many literature if you should integrate over R (real numbers) some choose to integrate from 0 to infinity doesn't it have to be from -infinity to +infinity ? could you also help me up with that ? thank you
    $endgroup$
    – Ömer F. Yi
    Dec 17 '18 at 1:17











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3043063%2ftheory-of-drawing-multivariable-functions-i-am-new%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









0












$begingroup$

A function $f$ from $X$ to $Y$ should for these purposes be thought of as a subset of the Cartesian product of $X$ and $Y$ - that is, if we can first picture $Xtimes Y$ we can picture $f$ by thinking of it as a "shape" living in $Xtimes Y$.



The crucial obstacle now is the dimension. If $X=mathbb{R}^m$ and $Y=mathbb{R}^n$, then $Xtimes Y$ is basically the same as $mathbb{R}^{m+n}$ - this is why trying to graph a function from $mathbb{R}^2$ to $mathbb{R}^2$ seems to force one into four-dimensional space.



Changing coordinate systems doesn't really help, unless you adopt a truly evil coordinate system (in which case your picture is ruined anyways): for example, even the shift from rectangular to polar coordinates (contrary to what you seem to claim) keeps the dimension of the plane the same (we still use two numbers to describe a given point). Once $X$ and $Y$ have some reasonable notion of geometry, we've really determined what $Xtimes Y$ is going to look like, and in particular how complicated it will be. Switching from one "reasonable description" to another won't result in a drastic change, although it may improve some aspects of the picture (e.g. make it easier to figure out the bounds in some integral).



This is all a first step into topology, and more specifically the study of manifolds.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    a brilliant answer. so for example R^2 to R^2 is no more possible to draw for us as it is 4 dimensional. So all the things are a bit complicated if you abstract the knowledge and the whole aspect of drawing function becomes very difficult when talking about manifolds ?
    $endgroup$
    – Ömer F. Yi
    Dec 16 '18 at 20:10










  • $begingroup$
    can i say that DOUBLE integral of f(x,y) dx dy is same as integral f(x)dx * integral f(y) dy genereally ? And another question is i have seen in many literature if you should integrate over R (real numbers) some choose to integrate from 0 to infinity doesn't it have to be from -infinity to +infinity ? could you also help me up with that ? thank you
    $endgroup$
    – Ömer F. Yi
    Dec 17 '18 at 1:17
















0












$begingroup$

A function $f$ from $X$ to $Y$ should for these purposes be thought of as a subset of the Cartesian product of $X$ and $Y$ - that is, if we can first picture $Xtimes Y$ we can picture $f$ by thinking of it as a "shape" living in $Xtimes Y$.



The crucial obstacle now is the dimension. If $X=mathbb{R}^m$ and $Y=mathbb{R}^n$, then $Xtimes Y$ is basically the same as $mathbb{R}^{m+n}$ - this is why trying to graph a function from $mathbb{R}^2$ to $mathbb{R}^2$ seems to force one into four-dimensional space.



Changing coordinate systems doesn't really help, unless you adopt a truly evil coordinate system (in which case your picture is ruined anyways): for example, even the shift from rectangular to polar coordinates (contrary to what you seem to claim) keeps the dimension of the plane the same (we still use two numbers to describe a given point). Once $X$ and $Y$ have some reasonable notion of geometry, we've really determined what $Xtimes Y$ is going to look like, and in particular how complicated it will be. Switching from one "reasonable description" to another won't result in a drastic change, although it may improve some aspects of the picture (e.g. make it easier to figure out the bounds in some integral).



This is all a first step into topology, and more specifically the study of manifolds.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    a brilliant answer. so for example R^2 to R^2 is no more possible to draw for us as it is 4 dimensional. So all the things are a bit complicated if you abstract the knowledge and the whole aspect of drawing function becomes very difficult when talking about manifolds ?
    $endgroup$
    – Ömer F. Yi
    Dec 16 '18 at 20:10










  • $begingroup$
    can i say that DOUBLE integral of f(x,y) dx dy is same as integral f(x)dx * integral f(y) dy genereally ? And another question is i have seen in many literature if you should integrate over R (real numbers) some choose to integrate from 0 to infinity doesn't it have to be from -infinity to +infinity ? could you also help me up with that ? thank you
    $endgroup$
    – Ömer F. Yi
    Dec 17 '18 at 1:17














0












0








0





$begingroup$

A function $f$ from $X$ to $Y$ should for these purposes be thought of as a subset of the Cartesian product of $X$ and $Y$ - that is, if we can first picture $Xtimes Y$ we can picture $f$ by thinking of it as a "shape" living in $Xtimes Y$.



The crucial obstacle now is the dimension. If $X=mathbb{R}^m$ and $Y=mathbb{R}^n$, then $Xtimes Y$ is basically the same as $mathbb{R}^{m+n}$ - this is why trying to graph a function from $mathbb{R}^2$ to $mathbb{R}^2$ seems to force one into four-dimensional space.



Changing coordinate systems doesn't really help, unless you adopt a truly evil coordinate system (in which case your picture is ruined anyways): for example, even the shift from rectangular to polar coordinates (contrary to what you seem to claim) keeps the dimension of the plane the same (we still use two numbers to describe a given point). Once $X$ and $Y$ have some reasonable notion of geometry, we've really determined what $Xtimes Y$ is going to look like, and in particular how complicated it will be. Switching from one "reasonable description" to another won't result in a drastic change, although it may improve some aspects of the picture (e.g. make it easier to figure out the bounds in some integral).



This is all a first step into topology, and more specifically the study of manifolds.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$



A function $f$ from $X$ to $Y$ should for these purposes be thought of as a subset of the Cartesian product of $X$ and $Y$ - that is, if we can first picture $Xtimes Y$ we can picture $f$ by thinking of it as a "shape" living in $Xtimes Y$.



The crucial obstacle now is the dimension. If $X=mathbb{R}^m$ and $Y=mathbb{R}^n$, then $Xtimes Y$ is basically the same as $mathbb{R}^{m+n}$ - this is why trying to graph a function from $mathbb{R}^2$ to $mathbb{R}^2$ seems to force one into four-dimensional space.



Changing coordinate systems doesn't really help, unless you adopt a truly evil coordinate system (in which case your picture is ruined anyways): for example, even the shift from rectangular to polar coordinates (contrary to what you seem to claim) keeps the dimension of the plane the same (we still use two numbers to describe a given point). Once $X$ and $Y$ have some reasonable notion of geometry, we've really determined what $Xtimes Y$ is going to look like, and in particular how complicated it will be. Switching from one "reasonable description" to another won't result in a drastic change, although it may improve some aspects of the picture (e.g. make it easier to figure out the bounds in some integral).



This is all a first step into topology, and more specifically the study of manifolds.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Dec 16 '18 at 19:45









Noah SchweberNoah Schweber

127k10151290




127k10151290












  • $begingroup$
    a brilliant answer. so for example R^2 to R^2 is no more possible to draw for us as it is 4 dimensional. So all the things are a bit complicated if you abstract the knowledge and the whole aspect of drawing function becomes very difficult when talking about manifolds ?
    $endgroup$
    – Ömer F. Yi
    Dec 16 '18 at 20:10










  • $begingroup$
    can i say that DOUBLE integral of f(x,y) dx dy is same as integral f(x)dx * integral f(y) dy genereally ? And another question is i have seen in many literature if you should integrate over R (real numbers) some choose to integrate from 0 to infinity doesn't it have to be from -infinity to +infinity ? could you also help me up with that ? thank you
    $endgroup$
    – Ömer F. Yi
    Dec 17 '18 at 1:17


















  • $begingroup$
    a brilliant answer. so for example R^2 to R^2 is no more possible to draw for us as it is 4 dimensional. So all the things are a bit complicated if you abstract the knowledge and the whole aspect of drawing function becomes very difficult when talking about manifolds ?
    $endgroup$
    – Ömer F. Yi
    Dec 16 '18 at 20:10










  • $begingroup$
    can i say that DOUBLE integral of f(x,y) dx dy is same as integral f(x)dx * integral f(y) dy genereally ? And another question is i have seen in many literature if you should integrate over R (real numbers) some choose to integrate from 0 to infinity doesn't it have to be from -infinity to +infinity ? could you also help me up with that ? thank you
    $endgroup$
    – Ömer F. Yi
    Dec 17 '18 at 1:17
















$begingroup$
a brilliant answer. so for example R^2 to R^2 is no more possible to draw for us as it is 4 dimensional. So all the things are a bit complicated if you abstract the knowledge and the whole aspect of drawing function becomes very difficult when talking about manifolds ?
$endgroup$
– Ömer F. Yi
Dec 16 '18 at 20:10




$begingroup$
a brilliant answer. so for example R^2 to R^2 is no more possible to draw for us as it is 4 dimensional. So all the things are a bit complicated if you abstract the knowledge and the whole aspect of drawing function becomes very difficult when talking about manifolds ?
$endgroup$
– Ömer F. Yi
Dec 16 '18 at 20:10












$begingroup$
can i say that DOUBLE integral of f(x,y) dx dy is same as integral f(x)dx * integral f(y) dy genereally ? And another question is i have seen in many literature if you should integrate over R (real numbers) some choose to integrate from 0 to infinity doesn't it have to be from -infinity to +infinity ? could you also help me up with that ? thank you
$endgroup$
– Ömer F. Yi
Dec 17 '18 at 1:17




$begingroup$
can i say that DOUBLE integral of f(x,y) dx dy is same as integral f(x)dx * integral f(y) dy genereally ? And another question is i have seen in many literature if you should integrate over R (real numbers) some choose to integrate from 0 to infinity doesn't it have to be from -infinity to +infinity ? could you also help me up with that ? thank you
$endgroup$
– Ömer F. Yi
Dec 17 '18 at 1:17


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3043063%2ftheory-of-drawing-multivariable-functions-i-am-new%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







-

Popular posts from this blog

Plaza Victoria

Image
Plaza Victoria Plaza Victoria en 2017 Otros nombres Plaza de La Victoria Localización El Almendral, Valparaíso, Chile Vías adyacentes Chacabuco, Molina, Plaza Victoria y Edwards Creación 1841 Metro Bellavista Ubicación 33°02′46″S 71°37′11″O  /  -33.04624167, -71.61980833 Coordenadas: 33°02′46″S 71°37′11″O  /  -33.04624167, -71.61980833 [editar datos en Wikidata] La Plaza Victoria , también llamada Plaza de la Victoria , [ 1 ] ​ es una plaza ubicada en el sector El Almendral del plan de la ciudad de Valparaíso, Chile, de importancia patrimonial, que incluye valiosas estatuas y especies vegetales. [ 2 ] ​ La plaza se creó como tal en la primera mitad del siglo XIX, tomando previamente los nombres de Plaza Nueva y Plaza de Orrego . Si bien desde sus inicios tuvo relevancia histórica, no fue sino a partir de fines de los años 1860 cuando comenzó a cobrar mayor importancia y se convirtió en uno de los principales centros sociales de l...
Read more

Puebla de Zaragoza

Image
Para otros usos de este término, véase Puebla (desambiguación). Heroica Puebla de Zaragoza Localidad De arriba a abajo de izquierda a derecha: Estrella de Puebla, Volcán Popocatépetl, Catedral de Puebla, Monumento a Ignacio Zaragoza, Estadio Cuauhtémoc, Angelópolis y Vista panorámica de la ciudad. Escudo Otros nombres: El relicario de América/ La ciudad de los Ángeles/ La Angelópolis Lema: Muy noble y muy leal ciudad de Puebla de los Ángeles Heroica Puebla de Zaragoza Localización de Heroica Puebla de Zaragoza en México Heroica Puebla de Zaragoza Localización de Heroica Puebla de Zaragoza en Puebla Mapa interactivo Coordenadas 19°03′05″N 98°13′04″O  /  19.051388888889, -98.217777777778 Coordenadas: 19°03′05″N 98°13′04″O  /  19.051388888889, -98.217777777778 Idioma oficial Español Entidad Localidad  • País   México  • Estado Puebla  • Municipio Puebla Presidente municipal Claudia Rivera Vivanc...
Read more

Musa

Image
Para el género de plantas, véase Musa (planta). Apolo y la Nueve Musas En la mitología griega, las musas (en griego antiguo μοῦσαι « mousai» ) son, según los escritores más antiguos, las divinidades inspiradoras de las Artes: cada una de ellas está relacionada con ramas artísticas y del conocimiento. Son hijas de Zeus y de Mnemósine, compañeras del séquito de Apolo, dios olímpico de la música y patrón de las bellas artes, quien tuvo romances con cada una de ellas, dejando descendientes. Bajaban a la tierra a susurrar ideas e inspirar a aquellos mortales que las invocaran. En la época más arcaica eran las ninfas inspiradoras de las fuentes, en las cuales eran adoradas. Finalmente, alrededor de los siglos VIII-VII a. C. [ 1 ] ​ prevaleció en todo el territorio de la Hélade la adoración de las nueve Musas, que son Calíope, Clío, Erato, Euterpe, Melpómene, Polimnia, Talía, Terpsícore y Urania. El culto a las musas era originalmente de Tracia y Beocia, y fueron de vital impo...
Read more