Did you bother to read ths?
"The distance around an object can’t be more than 360 degrees. I colour the surface one colour for 360 degrees, then I go around the object again colouring the rest of the surface another colour".
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof
- Thread starter robinson
- Start date
"The distance around an object can’t be more than 360 degrees. I colour the surface one colour for 360 degrees, then I go around the object again colouring the rest of the surface another colour".
m_huber
Muse
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2007
- Messages
- 828
I think I understand what you are saying, but it doesn't make much sense. It sounds like you are doing a thought experiment and not an actual experiment.
If I am reading you correctly, you are imagining a circle around the object, then coloring that circle one color on the outside, and another color on the inside. For a circle or sphere, that works. For a Mobius Strip, you have to deal with the twist in the paper, which presents you with the problem of having to decide which color to make the edge, where both the "inside" surface and "outside" surface are equally present in both the "inside" and "outside." You have to do something with the twist.
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2006
- Messages
- 15,948
I have to go with RC on this one. You can easily demonstrate for yourself that you get two different results doing it Ynot's way versus RC's way.
sol invictus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 8,613
You could try that experiment in less time than it took you to post that. Just tear off a strip of paper.
The actual physical model and the abstract mathematical model don’t accurately represent each other. The physical model is 3D with depth. The mathematical model is 2D with no depth. You guys seem to be claiming that the physical model is the mathematical model.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Actually you are claiming the physical model is the mathematical model.
The physical model is a physical representation of the mathematical model. It is not the same as the mathematical model. When we look at the physical model we ignore any "depth".
That completely contradicts itself. I say that the actual is 3D and the math is 2D. How is this “claiming the physical model is the mathematical model”? Then you say “When we look at the physical model we ignore any depth". In other words, you see it as the mathematical model. What’s more, it seems to me that you claim that actually it is.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
The mathematical model is a 2D mobius band.
The physical model is a 3D strip of paper where we ignore the thickness of the paper thus making it into a 2D strip of paper, i.e. a representation of the 2D mobius band.
Not really. I think the claim that an actual 3D object is an abstract 2D object, is an extraordinary claim!
That’s exactly what I said.
“The physical model is a 3D strip of paper”. Good, and do you also agree that the physical mobius model constructed from that 3D strip of paper is no less 3D?
“we ignore the thickness of the paper thus making it into a 2D strip of paper, i.e. a representation of the 2D mobius band”. What is gained by changing something that can and does exist in to something that can’t and doesn’t? If it was said that an actual physical mobius band is an imperfect representation of an abstract mathematical mobius strip (or visa-versa) that would be fine, but this not what is being said.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Are you claiming that all mathematical objects "can’t and doesn’t" exist?
How is this post (#249)
Perhaps you need to go back to that “usually excellent NZ educational system”
Not completely contradicted by this post? (#269)
Perhaps you need to go back to that “usually excellent NZ educational system”
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
How is this post (#249)
Not completely contradicted by this post? (#269)
Perhaps you need to go back to that “usually excellent NZ educational system”
If I wanted to be pedantic then the first postings would include "ignoring the paper thickness". But that should be obvious by the context - a model os a 2D object should be treated as a 2D object.
Last edited:
Of course not, I‘m merely talking about a specific one that can‘t and doesn‘t exist as an actual reality.
Why don’t you answer my question? . . .
“do you also agree that the physical mobius model constructed from that 3D strip of paper is no less 3D?”
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
I agree - a 3D piece of paper is a piece of paper existing in 3 dimensions. A 3D piece of paper used to model a 2D mathematical object still is a 3D piece of paper.
Last edited:
Do you (and others) also agree that being 3D, an actual physical mobius band has sides and is “orientable“?
ETA - Does anyone else disagree that an actual physical mobius band is a 3D object?
Last edited:
Damien Evans
Up The Irons
That is quite possibly the worst post outside of conspiracy theories ever.
Damien Evans
Up The Irons
This is, of course, because Robinson holds advanced degrees in both astrophysics AND general relativity...
... oh wait, that's right. He doesn't. Nor does he have any damn clue what he's talking about. He just likes to call himself a "skeptic" because apparently he believes that to do good science you must always go against the consensus views of the mainstream scientific community - the Galileo martyr complex, I suppose.
PS: Robinson is also the guy who thinks that vaccines don't really prevent disease and that mercury fillings cause all manner of health problems - just check any of the more recent autism/vaccination threads to see. I also forgot to mention that I've caught him blatantly lying on other threads, so I'd expect to see the same behavior here.
And Robinson, if you try to deny the whole lying bit, I'll dig out the old posts and show everyone. So don't screw around trying to deny it.
EDIT: To hell with it, I'm tired of Robinson's garbage. Here are the posts wherein he was caught blatantly lying, in case you care...
ABC show prepetuates autism/vaccine link - post #218
ABC show prepetuates autism/vaccine link - post #214
ABC show prepetuates autism/vaccine link - post #195
Sigh... now I feel better about venting my spleen.
You forgot the easiest lie to see of all: his custom title.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
The actual physical mobius strip actually has 1 surface and 1 edge (not 2 sides). The presence of a side does not make the model orientable.
Read the definition in Wikipedia .