We are already discussing mathematics,
On a forum where anything over integration is esoteric maths.
You seem to have a problem with being corrected over a definition, and then bring up Wikipedia to defend your position.
Which does show a common definition, does it not? There are other sources of the same definition, but why bother if you so readily dismiss anything that doesn't match your "high" level of understanding eh?
I will finish by re-stating my point that it is not the paper loop itself that is my mobious strip;
Funny, I don't remember you saying this particular point in just this way before.
What you are really saying here is that the model is not the concept of the mobius strip.
in the same way that I point to not the apple but rotations of the apple as the realisation of the group SO(3).
And deal with a mathematical abstaction of the apple instead.
This has been my point all along - you keep looking at mathematical abstractions instead of the real object.
Back to the philosophy, but I really have lost interest now.
It's not philosophy but reality intruding on your philosophy. I deal everyday with making my involved, technical, esoteric mathematical approximations of reality work in the real world and take into account the fact that the math is not the reality to make it work.
The mobius strip is just one example of this reality. One that most people can see.
Enjoy.
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.