|
saint_john
Sep 9, 2011, 5:08 PM
Post #2 of 15
(3774 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 4, 2010
Posts: 494
|
I usually geek-out for stuff like that.
that was too geeky for me, though. could only get through 4 minutes.
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Sep 10, 2011, 3:07 AM
Post #3 of 15
(3745 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
I laughed. I cried. Then I cried some more when it abruptly finished at 8 minutes while still not having gotten to the point.
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Sep 10, 2011, 4:35 AM
Post #4 of 15
(3734 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
blondgecko wrote: I laughed. I cried. Then I cried some more when it abruptly finished at 8 minutes while still not having gotten to the point.
yea... part 2! brain hurts quite a bit actually..
|
|
|
|
|
dan2see
Sep 10, 2011, 6:29 AM
Post #6 of 15
(3723 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2006
Posts: 1497
|
I endured only half-way through the second video. I don't believe the inversion will work, and I don't believe the waves add anything. I'd allow that 3 dimensions might offer another degree of freedom. But still I could not understand what was the impact of all the different ways of counting the curve number.
But mostly, I don't believe the procedure will work, so I don't have to watch the entire video.
On the other hand, I had fun browsing the chemistry demonstrations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dan2see
Sep 10, 2011, 1:02 PM
Post #8 of 15
(3705 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2006
Posts: 1497
|
Ain't math grand?
No I did not pay the $24.00 to see the text, so I did not go any further.
Maybe the idea of inverting everting the sphere is simple, and maybe the article actually describes the procedure. But the abstract is a standard example of how "Math is a language". That means two things:
1. The symbology and syntax in the discussion is not obvious. You must read that stuff with the same structural ideas that the author intended.
2. You can learn the language by reading and practice, in the field where it is used. The cost of acquiring this language is considerable. You should expect to study in the math classes of some university for at least a year, possibly more.
But it's too late for me!
Sometime around 1965, Scientific American Magazine published an article on how to invert the sphere. The description was straightforward, and the diagrams were clear and easy to see. I was able to follow every step of the procedure, but I was troubled by the feeling that I was missing something. It felt a little like some math problems where you accidently divide something by zero, and fail to notice.
Well the following month, in the "Letters to the Editor", somebody wrote to congratulate the author on the excellent presentation in the "April" edition, along with DaVinci's helicopter and Thomas Crapper's flush toilet.
So you see, my mind is already made up. It's too late to present any kind of proof to me!
(This post was edited by dan2see on Sep 10, 2011, 3:47 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
dan2see
Sep 10, 2011, 4:23 PM
Post #9 of 15
(3692 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2006
Posts: 1497
|
Here's another description of the problem, and what some solutions look like:
"The Optiverse" and Other Sphere Eversions by John M. Sullivan, 1999
The text and pictures show more clearly what is happening.
---o---o---
I understand why you must not crease or tear a surface, and why it's OK for a surface to intersect itself.
But I am bothered by the indirect approach to the theory. How does embedding a surface give it extra properties that it didn't already have?
Also, in the discussion I've linked above, he proposes that a surface has an inner side and an outer side, and that these two things can be somehow have their own identities.
(This post was edited by dan2see on Sep 10, 2011, 4:24 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
veganclimber
Sep 10, 2011, 6:54 PM
Post #10 of 15
(3676 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 17, 2005
Posts: 2775
|
dan2see wrote: Ain't math grand? No I did not pay the $24.00 to see the text, so I did not go any further.
That's strange. It didn't ask me for money. If you really want to see it, the article is:
Smale, Stephen (1958), "A classification of immersions of the two-sphere", Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 90: 281–290, ISSN 0002-9947, MR0104227
I'm sure you can find a free version somewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
dan2see
Sep 10, 2011, 7:48 PM
Post #11 of 15
(3673 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2006
Posts: 1497
|
veganclimber wrote: dan2see wrote: Ain't math grand? No I did not pay the $24.00 to see the text, so I did not go any further. That's strange. It didn't ask me for money. If you really want to see it, the article is: Smale, Stephen (1958), "A classification of immersions of the two-sphere", Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 90: 281–290, ISSN 0002-9947, MR0104227 I'm sure you can find a free version somewhere.
Oops! I mis-interpreted the title page, and followed a link where I did not need to.
Well! I was able to follow the odd line here and there in the discussion. But in general, it felt like bushwhacking. Maybe I should admit that the math is 'way over my head? Or eclectic esoteric. But still, it's hard to determine where the discussion came from, and where it leads you.
(This post was edited by dan2see on Sep 11, 2011, 1:34 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
veganclimber
Sep 10, 2011, 9:57 PM
Post #12 of 15
(3664 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 17, 2005
Posts: 2775
|
dan2see wrote: veganclimber wrote: dan2see wrote: Ain't math grand? No I did not pay the $24.00 to see the text, so I did not go any further. That's strange. It didn't ask me for money. If you really want to see it, the article is: Smale, Stephen (1958), "A classification of immersions of the two-sphere", Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 90: 281–290, ISSN 0002-9947, MR0104227 I'm sure you can find a free version somewhere. Oops! I mis-interpreted the title page, and followed a link where I did not need to. Well! I was able to follow the odd line here and there in the discussion. But in general, it felt like bushwhacking. Maybe I should admit that the math is 'way over my head? Or eclectic. But still, it's hard to determine where the discussion came from, and where it leads you.
Yea, I just linked the article to put the video in perspective. A 20 minute video that's sort of hard to follow, compared to a proof that you would need a PhD to follow.
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
Sep 12, 2011, 7:44 PM
Post #13 of 15
(3609 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
I'm clearly too high or not high enough to fully understand that video. Considering I'm not high, I can probably rule out the former, but honestly, I'm not sure.
|
|
|
|
|
squierbypetzl
Moderator
Sep 12, 2011, 11:36 PM
Post #14 of 15
(3599 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2005
Posts: 3431
|
What I don't get (in addition to pretty much all of it) is the "rules": you get to use a material that can pass through itself, but not be creased. Seems pretty arbitrary to me.
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
Sep 13, 2011, 4:24 AM
Post #15 of 15
(3584 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
squierbypetzl wrote: What I don't get (in addition to pretty much all of it) is the "rules": you get to use a material that can pass through itself, but not be creased. Seems pretty arbitrary to me.
Basically, the rule is that the gradient of the surface be well defined, and a crease is a discontinuity in the gradient, so it isn't allowed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
