Some of the hardest math I learned was linear algebra. It involved multiple dimensions though I'm not sure how closely related or useful to string theory it is.

Boutin described string theory math as looking like spaghetti. Linear algebra figuring was not unlike that. You know the old simple equations with 2 variables? If you have two equations with x and y variables, you can graph each equation in two dimensions as a line, and where the lines cross, is the solution for the two equations. Of course there are mathematical ways to do it that will give you the exact number, but you can visualize the dimensions of the equations in the graph form. Likewise with 3 variables. Those would graph out as three planes and where they intersect would be the common point.

With linear algebra, you could solve problems like say, having 15 equations with 15 variables each, or 7 and 7, etc. We had to learn the longhand way to do it first, which only makes sense. Economists who need complex models of the world with many different factors of influence use computers to solve the problems of course, but I'll bet the programmers use the same essential method, though I could be wrong.

Anywho, it's kinda hard to get your head around a graph of an equation with more than 3 variables. These problems can be solved mathematically even if you can't make tangible sense of what it means or would look like.

I liked Calculus and all that came before. Linear Algebra was, I hate to say it, not as fun. It was pure drudgery. Perhaps if I'd become a prestigious economist like say, ohh Paul Krugman of Princeton, I'd have had a chance to use a computer to do the drudgery.

__________________
Te futueo et caballum tuum

1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K