Comment Re:2D? (Score 2) 20
I've got news: atoms are not 2 dimensional. I can't help but think any publication that prints this stuff isn't worth the paper it's no longer printed on.
By that logic, a map cannot be 2D because it will always have the width of the material it's printed on. The mere concept of 2D would be meaningless for anything but abstract mathematical objects.
However that's not how we use words and meanings in language. If you build a computer on a layer of material where the width is not relevant - because by design it's impossible to build it any thinner, for all practical purposes it's correct to call it a 2D material, and it's pedantry to point out that any physical object necessarily has at least 3 spatial dimensions.