Let’s consider the structure of the simple, complex and multi-complex problems’ resolve from the point of view of multidimensional theory of spatial quantities. To resolve a simple task, principal components of which are systematically placed in two-dimensional space, it is enough to make a simple, often unambiguous decision.

In this case a deep penetration into this simple system’s structure, implying consideration of all possible solutions from different multi-level positions, is not required. Since the given space is two-dimensional, i.e. it is a plane, all possible solutions, which can be got by us, are evident.

Quite different way is used with the solution of complicated problems. Now we have to talk about three or more dimensions, in which the objects to be solved can be placed as you like and anywhere.

For example, let's consider a 100-story building with 100 windows both wide and tall, which has 10,000 windows on each side. It means the quantity of inner rooms in this building is over than twice as much. Let in one or in a few of these rooms, excluding stairways, there have been hidden some important objects that have to be located.

In this is concluded the only required solution of this complicated task. It is quite clear that in the given situation there is no any simple reliable solution, though some element of chance might exist, but with all the evidence it can be only inappreciable.

From the point of view of the science of geometric bodies’ properties - the “topology”, receiving of any solution in a similar three-dimensional spherical construction is very complicated event. In fact, a probability of chancily guessing of the required cell, if all they are identical, equals approximately 1:20.000. Moreover, in each cell (room) there can be many other places (tens or hundreds) where this object can be. Despite of this the main task to be resolved is locating of sought-for room (flat).

Similar tasks are successfully resolved in the forest conditions , when places, in which may be placed required objects, can make up many thousands: trees, bushes, pits, etc. In both cases we have to select only one, only required place (flat, room, tree, bush, pit, etc.), but not walking around and checking all these places out. A specially trained expert is able to select the only one straight way to the object and working it out.

Existing by now scientific methods of search allow conducting the search measures in such conditions with only same very simple two-dimensional toolkits, through sequential examination of all 20.000 rooms, not being sure that the required objects will be easy located within a few seconds, right after the required room will get found out. This task might get much easier if in this work will get involved 20.000 soldiers – one room per each. However such solution is not appropriate and scientific. Such methods could be used a hundred or even a thousand years ago with similar effect. Moreover, it is quite clear, we have to recognize that involvement of so many human resources for this complex task’s solution is economically disadvantageous procedure in view of its high cost.

Out of the spoken above it follows that a use of the two-dimensional methods for complex and multi-complex tasks’ solution, doesn’t make any scientific sense since provides serious lags in development of the science. But what we have now for conducting of complicated search operations, as of tasks of increased complexity, enforces us to stay at the level of Sherlock Holmes times. I.e. we stay in one the same place, not having a possibility for the development.

Consequently, we extremely need to get taught interacting with three-dimensional space, to well orient in it, and to receive the only correct solutions on multi-complex spherical tasks.

The hypothesis being advanced is that such interaction is possible; there are precedents for decision making under such conditions; there are also methods for transferring such skills from a teacher to students.