2-dimensional

One additional difficulty in making Portal 2-dimensional is the loss of a relative frame of reference, which can cause control problems.

I don't want to speak with any authority on this subject since it's mostly foreign to me. However, I will say that your explanation comes with a pretty big assumption: that a library sits on some 2-dimensional spectrum from bad to good.

For this first study, the derived route is only 2-dimensional.

So real numbers are 1-dimensional, and complex numbers are 2-dimensional.

There is no grid or use of whitespace to guide the eye, and it presents a non-uniform 2-dimensional array of controls of different sizes.

Our brains already look at the images projected onto a 2-dimensional plane and infer the third dimension.

If you were a 2-dimensional being you could be on a plane or you could be on the surface of a sphere.

It's a more general term for 3-dimensional information being encoded on a 2-dimensional surface.

My guess is that the people describing it as 2D are focusing on different properties of 2-dimensional space than you are and would agree with you that stacking it would increase the height.

The solution set to equations of the form X^2 + Y^2 = R^2?The boundary of a ball in a 2-dimensional, euclidean metric space?An equivalence class of Gaussian numbers based on their norms?

The benefit of this scheme is you can plot different revenue models on a 2-dimensional or 3-dimensional graph.

However, one could ask this question in context of inner product spaces where one can define an angle in a natural way, but all real 2-dimensional inner product spaces are essentially all alike, so the answer is negative as well.

An image is just a function of amplitude vs. distance, though there are 2 distance variables since an image is 2-dimensional, but the idea is the same, and the Fourier Transform is still defined for functions of 2 or more variables.

I think of printers as devices which produce hard copy 2-dimensional images.