Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

[ynot]

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 .

The wikipedia definition is mathematical. Have you forgotten we’re talking about and actual physical object, not math? All actual, physical objects have one exterior surface. This surface can be abstractly divided in to smaller surfaces (usually by corners). The edge of a physical mobius band is one such abstract surface. The mobius band therefore has two surfaces, one wider than the other. A surface is not a side, a side is an orientation. A curved surface can extend from one side to another, and this is what happens in a physical mobius band.

 

[Reality Check]

The wikipedia definition is mathematical. Have you forgotten we’re talking about and actual physical object, not math? All actual, physical objects have one exterior surface. This surface can be abstractly divided in to smaller surfaces (usually by corners). The edge of a physical mobius band is one such abstract surface. The mobius band therefore has two surfaces, one wider than the other. A surface is not a side, a side is an orientation. A curved surface can extend from one side to another, and this is what happens in a physical mobius band.

Then what is your definition of "orientable" in respect to the actual physical object?
If you mean orientable as in English then of course the actual physical object can be oriented, e.g. so that the axis of the band points north or south or south-west.
Otherwise I would be interested in how you define "orientable" without math and whether it is applicable to other physical objects (the mathematical definition is applicable to any surface).

You also need to clarify your use of "abstract" - is this as in "abstract math" or in some other sense?

 

[ynot]

Then what is your definition of "orientable" in respect to the actual physical object?
If you mean orientable as in English then of course the actual physical object can be oriented, e.g. so that the axis of the band points north or south or south-west.
Otherwise I would be interested in how you define "orientable" without math and whether it is applicable to other physical objects (the mathematical definition is applicable to any surface).

You also need to clarify your use of "abstract" - is this as in "abstract math" or in some other sense?

Side = Top side, bottom side, front side, back side, left side, right side, inside, outside, etc.

Abstract = A part that has been abstracted (taken away or considered separately) from the whole thing. The surface of a strip is both the wide surfaces and the narrower edge and end surfaces. To only consider the wide surface is to abstract it from the whole surface.

ETA _ Perhaps it would be better to call small surfaces that are part of an overall surface “sub-surfaces“.

 

[MattusMaximus]

You forgot the easiest lie to see of all: his custom title.

No kidding - the irony on that custom title is so thick you could cut it with a knife.

 

[Reality Check]

Side = Top side, bottom side, front side, back side, left side, right side, inside, outside, etc.

Abstract = A part that has been abstracted (taken away or considered separately) from the whole thing. The surface of a strip is both the wide surfaces and the narrower edge and end surfaces. To only consider the wide surface is to abstract it from the whole surface.

ETA _ Perhaps it would be better to call small surfaces that are part of an overall surface “sub-surfaces“.

Then you are right - something that has sides can be oriented, e.g. put it on its top side.

This has nothing to do with the orientable mathematical property of a mobius strip or an "actual mobius strip".

 

[Taffer]

ynot, you seem to be fixated on us living in a 3 dimensional universe. Perhaps you have some evidence that the universe is limited to 3 dimensions?

 

[ynot]

Then you are right - something that has sides can be oriented, e.g. put it on its top side.

This has nothing to do with the orientable mathematical property of a mobius strip or an "actual mobius strip".

I’ve never been talking about a mobius band in mathematical terms. When someone says to get a strip of paper and give it half twist then join the ends together, the logical reasonable assumption is that they’re talking about an actual physical object (unless you‘re a math geek). Perhaps you guys need to put down your calculators and slide rules, walk away from your desks in to the real world. Smell a tree, hug a flower, step in some dog poo. Have a look at the world in non -mathematical terms (it exists).

 

[ynot]

ynot, you seem to be fixated on us living in a 3 dimensional universe. Perhaps you have some evidence that the universe is limited to 3 dimensions?

Haven’t you asked that question before, and haven’t I answered it?

I’ve never seen any credible evidence that the universe can be less or more than 3D. If you have such evidence please provide it.

You won't miss the word "credible" will you.

 

[Reality Check]

I’ve never been talking about a mobius band in mathematical terms. When someone says to get a strip of paper and give it half twist then join the ends together, the logical reasonable assumption is that they’re talking about an actual physical object (unless you‘re a math geek). Perhaps you guys need to put down your calculators and slide rules, walk away from your desks in to the real world. Smell a tree, hug a flower, step in some dog poo. Have a look at the world in non -mathematical terms (it exists).

Actually my background is in physics rather than mathematics so I know a little about looking at the real world.

It is easy to describe what you see in terms of concrete things. The problem comes whan you have to do things like describe it to other people or predict things. This is where mathematical models come in and where we want the mathematical model (e.g. an abstract mobuis strip) to obey the same mathematical rules as the actual physical model (e.g. a mobuis strip made of paper).

 

[ynot]

Actually my background is in physics rather than mathematics so I know a little about looking at the real world.

It is easy to describe what you see in terms of concrete things. The problem comes whan you have to do things like describe it to other people or predict things. This is where mathematical models come in and where we want the mathematical model (e.g. an abstract mobuis strip) to obey the same mathematical rules as the actual physical model (e.g. a mobuis strip made of paper).

Modern physics is predominately math isn’t it?

I’m not beating up on math, it’s a very useful and worthwhile abstract tool. An actual physical mobius band is a “concrete” thing. In fact one could be made of concrete. What is an abstract math model of a mobius band (that doesn’t accurately represent the actual model) trying to describe or predict that a non-mathematical observation and evaluation of the actual model can’t?

 

[Taffer]

Haven’t you asked that question before, and haven’t I answered it?

I don't recall.

I’ve never seen any credible evidence that the universe can be less or more than 3D. If you have such evidence please provide it.

You won't miss the word "credible" will you.

Nuh-huh, that's not how it works. You made the claim that there are ONLY 3 dimensions. Plenty of mathematical and physics based work more accurately predicts things when assuming more then 3 spacial dimensions. If there is no good reason to think there are only 3 dimensions, why shouldn't we assume there are more?

 

[Reality Check]

Modern physics is predominately math isn’t it?

I’m not beating up on math, it’s a very useful and worthwhile abstract tool. An actual physical mobius band is a “concrete” thing. In fact one could be made of concrete. What is an abstract math model of a mobius band (that doesn’t accurately represent the actual model) trying to describe or predict that a non-mathematical observation and evaluation of the actual model can’t?

Mathematical models are generally applicable to many physical models. The mobius strip is not a good example of this but equations such as "F = ma" are and illustrates the ability to make predictions. Other wise you would have to use the equivalent description ("the acceleration of an object is proportional to the force applied, and inversely proportional to the mass of the object") and not be able to predict what one quantity would be given the other 2.

 

[ynot]

Mathematical models are generally applicable to many physical models. The mobius strip is not a good example of this but equations such as "F = ma" are and illustrates the ability to make predictions. Other wise you would have to use the equivalent description ("the acceleration of an object is proportional to the force applied, and inversely proportional to the mass of the object") and not be able to predict what one quantity would be given the other 2.

Nothing that I’ve said (I hope) disagrees with this.

Can you (or anyone) answer this question please? - “What is an abstract math model of a mobius band (that doesn’t accurately represent the actual model) trying to describe or predict that a non-mathematical observation and evaluation of the actual model can’t? “

 

[ynot]

I don't recall.



Nuh-huh, that's not how it works. You made the claim that there are ONLY 3 dimensions. Plenty of mathematical and physics based work more accurately predicts things when assuming more then 3 spacial dimensions. If there is no good reason to think there are only 3 dimensions, why shouldn't we assume there are more?

Saying that I’ve never seen any credible evidence that the universe is ever anything but 3 dimensional is NOT saying that the universe is ONLY 3 dimensional.

A god works better for some people too, doesn’t mean one exists.

The good reason to think there are only 3 dimensions is because that’s what the credible evidence suggests is the reality.

 

[m_huber]

Saying that I’ve never seen any credible evidence that the universe is ever anything but 3 dimensional is NOT saying that the universe is ONLY 3 dimensional.

A god works better for some people too, doesn’t mean one exists.

The good reason to think there are only 3 dimensions is because that’s what the credible evidence suggests is the reality.

Uh, time?

 

[Reality Check]

Nothing that I’ve said (I hope) disagrees with this.

Can you (or anyone) answer this question please? - “What is an abstract math model of a mobius band (that doesn’t accurately represent the actual model) trying to describe or predict that a non-mathematical observation and evaluation of the actual model can’t? “

Probably nothing but in a more concise way.

 

[Taffer]

Saying that I’ve never seen any credible evidence that the universe is ever anything but 3 dimensional is NOT saying that the universe is ONLY 3 dimensional.

Ok, granted.

A god works better for some people too, doesn’t mean one exists.

True.

The good reason to think there are only 3 dimensions is because that’s what the credible evidence suggests is the reality.

Ok, that's fine. I apologize, I think I misunderstood your position. Even if I don't agree with you that there is no credible evidence, I cannot fault your skeptical stance on the subject.

 

[ynot]

Ok, granted.



True.



Ok, that's fine. I apologize, I think I misunderstood your position. Even if I don't agree with you that there is no credible evidence, I cannot fault your skeptical stance on the subject.

Thanks for your understanding, I didn’t expect you to agree.

 

[ynot]

Uh, time?

I’m talking about actual, not abstract or theoretical. What credible, actual evidence do you have that time is an actual dimension?

 

[ynot]

Probably nothing but in a more concise way.

I fail to see how an abstract model (that doesn’t accurately represent the actual model) is more concise than the actual model.