# Three Questions About Flatland

## David Stanke

1. What sort of mathematical proofs exist to demonstrate the validity of the
assumptions about the fourth dimension made through analogy? Is it possible
that the relationship between the second and third dimension is not exactly
analogous to the relationship between the third and fourth? Perhaps four is
a unique quality (e.g. it's the first integer that's not prime...)?

2. What sort of surface is Flatland on? I would assume it's a plane curved
in the third dimension, so as to produce the "downward attraction" in
varying degrees. Was Abbott suggesting that forces in our own three-space
are created by curvature in higher dimensions, as Einstein would postulate
years later?

3. How common is the link between theology and theories of
higher-dimensionality? While reading the book, I constanly was reminded of
Dali's Christus Hypercubus. Also, I've heard some references to the theory
that angels are higher-dimension creatures...