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

126k10151290




126k10151290












  • $begingroup$
    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

Bundesstraße 106

Image
Dieser Artikel beschreibt die Bundesstraße 106 in Deutschland. Zur gleichnamigen Straße in Österreich siehe Mölltal Straße. Vorlage:Infobox hochrangige Straße/Wartung/DE-B Bundesstraße 106 in Deutschland Karte Basisdaten Betreiber: Deutschland  Bundesrepublik Deutschland Straßenbeginn: Wismar ( 53° 54′  N , 11° 24′  O 53.900536 11.396875 ) Straßenende: Schwerin ( 53° 36′  N , 11° 24′  O 53.592785 11.404892 ) Gesamtlänge: 40,7 km Bundesland: Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Ausbauzustand: zweistreifig [1] Bundesstraße 106 in Schwerin (Umgehungsstraße) Straßenverlauf Land Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Landkreis Nordwestmecklenburg Ortsumgehung Wismar Wallensteingraben über   Dorf Mecklenburg Wallensteingraben Groß Stieten Bad Kleinen OT Niendorf Bahnstrecke Lübeck–Bad Kleinen Zickhusen Lübstorf Klein Trebbow OT Kirch Stück
Read more

Verónica Boquete

Image
Verónica Boquete im Trikot der Nationalmannschaft (2013) Personalia Name Verónica Boquete Giadans Geburtstag 9. April 1987 Geburtsort Santiago de Compostela, Spanien Größe 159 cm Position Mittelfeld / Sturm Juniorinnen Jahre Station 2001–2005 Xuventú Aguiño Frauen Jahre Station Spiele (Tore) 1 2005–2008 Prainsa Zaragoza 83 (40) 2008–2010 Espanyol Barcelona 53 (30) 2010 Buffalo Flash 9 0 (9) 2010 Chicago Red Stars 3 0 (1) 2010–2011 Espanyol Barcelona 26 (41) 2011 Philadelphia Independence 13 0 (5) 2011 Energija Woronesch 5 0 (1) 2012–2014 Tyresö FF 39 (14) 2014 Portland Thorns FC 15 0 (4) 2014–2015 1. FFC Frankfurt 23 0 (7) 2015–2016 FC Bayern München 9 0 (0) 2016–2018 Paris Saint-Germain 31 0 (8) 2018 Peking BG Phoenix 2019– Utah Royals FC 0 0 (0) Nationalmannschaft Jahre Auswahl
Read more

Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten

Image
Die Lage des Ida-Boy-Ed-Gartens, rot markiert Der Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten Der Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten, Blick von der Wakenitzmauer durch das Tor in der Stadtmauer Der Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten ist eine Straße der Lübecker Altstadt. Inhaltsverzeichnis 1 Lage 2 Geschichte 3 Literatur 4 Weblinks Lage | Der etwa 90 Meter lange Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten befindet sich an der nördlichen Spitze der Altstadtinsel, vor dem Burgtor. Die in einem Bogen durch eine Grünanlage hangaufwärts führende Straße verbindet die Wakenitzmauer mit der Burgtorbrücke. Geschichte | Der heutige Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten wurde ursprünglich als Verlängerung der Wakenitzmauer angelegt. 1903 wurde in den erhaltenen Teil der mittelalterlichen Stadtmauer, an dem die Wakenitzmauer bei der Einmündung der Kaiserstraße begann, ein Tor mit einem großen Bogen für die Durchführung der Straße und zwei kleineren seitlichen Öffnungen für Fußgänger gebrochen, um für die neu errichteten Wohnhäuser in diesem Bereich
Read more