Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Mathematics and Nature
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 61 of 90 (269816)
12-15-2005 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by RAZD
12-15-2005 9:20 PM


Re: Confusions of Topology = 1 math for another
Perhaps you should describe for me my understanding of the concept?
you are not comparing the concept with the model that is the reality of the paper strip.
As I said, the concept is a property. I am not trying to say that the paper strip is the same as that idealised concept described in the Wolfram article.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by RAZD, posted 12-15-2005 9:20 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by RAZD, posted 12-15-2005 9:44 PM cavediver has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 62 of 90 (269821)
12-15-2005 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by cavediver
12-15-2005 9:32 PM


Re: Confusions of Topology = 1 math for another
the mathematical concept is a single sided surface.
the paper model does not have a single surface, it has thickness dimensions with an inside as well as an outside as well as edges, and we aren't even getting to the rather difficult discontinuity at the joint formed by cut ends roughly lined up or lapped and glossed over with tape.
if you extract the mathematical topological concept from the model you are comparing two mathematical concepts and not the model to the original concept.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by cavediver, posted 12-15-2005 9:32 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by cavediver, posted 12-16-2005 4:43 AM RAZD has not replied
 Message 64 by Dr Jack, posted 12-16-2005 6:01 AM RAZD has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 63 of 90 (269903)
12-16-2005 4:43 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by RAZD
12-15-2005 9:44 PM


Re: Confusions of Topology = 1 math for another
the mathematical concept is a single sided surface.
This is how the concept was first realised but is now just an example of some idealised 3d object having the Mobius topology. I appreciate that this is how it is always depicted in popular mathematics, and constitutes the general understanding even amongst mathematicians who are perhaps not topologically trained outside of basic 3d concepts.
The Mobius topology is a 2d property. What does "single sided" mean in the context of a 2d surface? Singled sided is just an artifact of the embedding in 3d. Furthermore, what is a "surface"? Do we need such a vague concept to understand the topology? Not at all. That is why we have algebraic topology: to remove all of the vagueness of the pictures and extract the pertinent properties.
This is the problem here. For you to have any hope of appreciating what I am saying, you have to substantially broaden your understanding.
But in the context of your definition of a Mobius Strip (and as you brought up the term, I have been at fault in immediately substituting my understanding for your understanding without adequately making this clear), you are quite correct. But given that your definition is essentially just an idealisation of a real object: Mobius' first piece of paper "cellotaped" into a loop with a twist, it is not too surprising that you say that my loop cannot possibly satisfy your definition, because it is not idealised. I am happy to concede this rather obvious point
This message has been edited by cavediver, 12-16-2005 05:50 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by RAZD, posted 12-15-2005 9:44 PM RAZD has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 64 of 90 (269914)
12-16-2005 6:01 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by RAZD
12-15-2005 9:44 PM


Re: Confusions of Topology = 1 math for another
the mathematical concept is a single sided surface.
No, it isn't. The mathematical concept is of a bounded 2d surface with an equivalence map making points on the top and bottom edges equivalent to one another, in reversed order.
So (x, 0) = (1-x, 1) for all x in [0, 1] (taking the surface as [0,1]x[0,1] for simplicity of notation).
This is then expanded to all objects topologically equivalent to this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by RAZD, posted 12-15-2005 9:44 PM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by cavediver, posted 12-16-2005 6:47 AM Dr Jack has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 65 of 90 (269918)
12-16-2005 6:47 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Dr Jack
12-16-2005 6:01 AM


Re: Confusions of Topology = 1 math for another
The mathematical concept is of a bounded 2d surface with an equivalence map making points on the top and bottom edges equivalent to one another, in reversed order.
Quite. Though I would go further and re-state this in the algebraic language of a bundle, as you can then dispense with the idea of a surface altogether leaving just the topological data.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Dr Jack, posted 12-16-2005 6:01 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Dr Jack, posted 12-16-2005 8:42 AM cavediver has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 66 of 90 (269944)
12-16-2005 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by cavediver
12-16-2005 6:47 AM


Re: Confusions of Topology = 1 math for another
You could indeed, but I would argue that the definition I gave is the primary definition since the algebraic topological definition was defined to match the formal definition I gave.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by cavediver, posted 12-16-2005 6:47 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by cavediver, posted 12-16-2005 9:13 AM Dr Jack has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 67 of 90 (269952)
12-16-2005 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Dr Jack
12-16-2005 8:42 AM


Re: Confusions of Topology = 1 math for another
but I would argue that the definition I gave is the primary definition
Well, you can I'm not going to spend time on fighting "primary" vs "more fundemental"...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Dr Jack, posted 12-16-2005 8:42 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Dr Jack, posted 12-16-2005 9:38 AM cavediver has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 68 of 90 (269962)
12-16-2005 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by cavediver
12-16-2005 9:13 AM


Re: Confusions of Topology = 1 math for another
Touche

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by cavediver, posted 12-16-2005 9:13 AM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by RAZD, posted 12-17-2005 7:41 AM Dr Jack has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 69 of 90 (270281)
12-17-2005 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Dr Jack
12-16-2005 9:38 AM


Re: Confusions of Topology = 1 math for another
While you guys are busy patting yourselves on your backs about the various esoteric definitions you are using ... 2 things:
(1) from Wikipedia:
M·bi·us strip n.
The Mbius strip or Mbius band is a surface with only one side and only one boundary component. It has the mathematical property of being non-orientable. It was co-discovered independently by the German mathematicians August Ferdinand Mbius and Johann Benedict Listing in 1858.
Common usage still uses the definition I gave, and it still serves to describe the fundamental mathematical concept involved, and
(2) you are still ignoring that the model created by the strip does NOT in fact have these properties itself, that you are mentally extracting those properties from the model to compare it to the concept. For the model to have the properties even your esoteric definitions use, the points on one face would have to project through the paper -- they don't.
Enjoy.
{corrected typo}
This message has been edited by RAZD, 12*17*2005 02:24 PM

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Dr Jack, posted 12-16-2005 9:38 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Son Goku, posted 12-17-2005 1:54 PM RAZD has not replied
 Message 71 by cavediver, posted 12-17-2005 4:37 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 88 by Dr Jack, posted 12-19-2005 4:31 AM RAZD has not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 90 (270345)
12-17-2005 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by RAZD
12-17-2005 7:41 AM


Re: Confusions of Topology = 1 math for another
The way I understand it, the Mobius strip is a topology, just like a Klein bottle.
Topology is used to examine connectness in mathematical entities independant of their geometry or other specifics, just like differential geometry dicusses geometry without the need for embedding.
So something can have the property of a mobius strip topology even if it is not a surface, simply by having that connectivity. Examples would be mobius energy in knots and junction ladders in conformal field theory have boundaries with mobius topology.
So even if we cannot embed a 2D figure in 3D space which has the mobius topology, that does not mean that the mobius strip does not exist, as it is a topology not a shape.
I'm not the best on topology so there might be some mistakes.
This message has been edited by Son Goku, 12-17-2005 01:55 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by RAZD, posted 12-17-2005 7:41 AM RAZD has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 71 of 90 (270365)
12-17-2005 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by RAZD
12-17-2005 7:41 AM


Re: Confusions of Topology = 1 math for another
While you guys are busy patting yourselves on your backs about the various esoteric definitions you are using ... 2 things:
Esoteric??? Go get a degree in mathematics, or preferably a PhD before you start commenting on our usage please.
Wikipedia? Give me a f'ing break.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by RAZD, posted 12-17-2005 7:41 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by RAZD, posted 12-17-2005 4:57 PM cavediver has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 72 of 90 (270369)
12-17-2005 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by cavediver
12-17-2005 4:37 PM


Re: Confusions of Topology = 1 math for another
ah yes. attack the messenger and not deal with the message.
cool.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by cavediver, posted 12-17-2005 4:37 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by cavediver, posted 12-17-2005 5:06 PM RAZD has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 73 of 90 (270371)
12-17-2005 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by RAZD
12-17-2005 4:57 PM


Re: Confusions of Topology = 1 math for another
When the message is written in such insulting terms I will happily attack the messenger and ignore the message. I'm not paid to do this you know...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by RAZD, posted 12-17-2005 4:57 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by RAZD, posted 12-17-2005 6:39 PM cavediver has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 74 of 90 (270389)
12-17-2005 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by cavediver
12-17-2005 5:06 PM


Re: Confusions of Topology = 1 math for another
Wikipedia? Give me a f'ing break.
Nature study shows errors in wikipedia similar to enc. britannica.
dictionary.com
es·o·ter·ic adj.
1.a. Intended for or understood by only a particular group: an esoteric cult. See Synonyms at mysterious.
1.b. Of or relating to that which is known by a restricted number of people.
2.a. Confined to a small group: esoteric interests.
2.b. Not publicly disclosed; confidential.
If you find either 1b or 2a insulting, then have at it.
You still do not have a real mobius strip, but just a poor approximation that is good for demonstrating the concept. The model is not the concept.
Comparing the (mathematical) topological characteristics that you extract from the model with the original mathematical concept does not get you to the point of having realized the concept in actual fact.
Personally I don't see what the problem is with just admitting this basic fact.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by cavediver, posted 12-17-2005 5:06 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Son Goku, posted 12-17-2005 7:42 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 78 by cavediver, posted 12-18-2005 4:10 AM RAZD has replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 90 (270395)
12-17-2005 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by RAZD
12-17-2005 6:39 PM


Re: Confusions of Topology = 1 math for another
To quote John Listing himself, the inventor/discoverer of the mobius strip:
By topology we mean the doctrine of the modal features of objects, or of the laws of connection, of relative position and of succession of points, lines, surfaces, bodies and their parts, or aggregates in space, always without regard to matters of measure or quantity.
In this manner the Mobius strip was a connectivity he discovered in oriented three-dimensional polyhedra, as it came up again and again when discussing connectivity it became a hot topic in topology.
August Mbius then invented the one sided representation of this topology to aid him in thinking about it, as it is often easier to understand connectivity when it is related to shapes.
The Mobius strip is real, in that many things posses that connectivity. However no sequence of atoms can arrange themselves into the shape of August Mobius.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by RAZD, posted 12-17-2005 6:39 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by RAZD, posted 12-17-2005 8:28 PM Son Goku has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024