Display:
I guess you talk about "shrinkable surfaces" in the first paragraph, and essentially about "shrinkable curves" in the second paragraph. It looks a bit confusing: a doughnut is a closed surface, so it must be shrinkable to a point by your definition, but then there is something unshrinkable, unlike a sphere.

Topologically, there is not much choice for orientable closed surfaces: it is a sphere, a doughnut, or a long doughnut with many holes. But if you stay within the 3-dimensional space, the doughnut may form a knot (or multiple holes may pass through each other) with no way of untangling. Not to mention pathological things like this.

by das monde on Tue Jan 24th, 2012 at 11:19:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If you can visualize the idea of nonshrinkable closed curves on a surface in the second paragraph, presumably you can generalise to unshrinkable closed surfaces on a volume which has "holes" but that's not something you are going to encounter in elementary physics, as in "imagine our world were missing an infinite cyclider abour 'round here".

In any case, I insist it is more fruitful to state things as fluxes/circulations being unchanged under boundary-preserving defrormation unless charges are crossed. That way the question of "what is a closed orientable surface" does not arise.

tens of millions of people stand to see their lives ruined because the bureaucrats at the ECB don't understand introductory economics -- Dean Baker

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jan 25th, 2012 at 02:26:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series