"A shape whose impossibility might have been an elegant theorem, but whose existence may be much more elegant."
Chandler Davis, Editor-in-Chief, The Mathematical Intelligencer

http://www.gomboc.eu/gomboc_english.html

Hmm i dont get it. Obviously its not an impossible shape... :shrug:

How about a 3 sided square?

an impossible shape is one sided. unless a line is counted as a shape, hey i just had a thought.

you see a straight line, no matter how thin it is, its still a type of rectangle. because if you zoom in close enough you would be able to see all 4 sides. like this


- <--- that is still a rectangle even though it looks like a line.



peace.

In math a line has dimension 1, so no matter how much you zoom in, it willl never be a rectangle which has dimension 2. So that could be an impossible shape. Or do we define shapes as something with dimensions higher than 1?

It's a bit like a mexican jumping bean.

I was watching the film waiting for it to do something dramatic, so was a little disappointed.
It does move as though it couldn't decide what to do next, which is the point I suppose.

In math a line has dimension 1, so no matter how much you zoom in, it willl never be a rectangle which has dimension 2. So that could be an impossible shape. Or do we define shapes as something with dimensions higher than 1?

whats the difference between a rectangle and a straight line? if you colour in the rectangle its just a big fat line.


peace.

A line (mathematically speaking) has only length no width. So it has dimension 1. A rectangle has length and width and has dimension 2. So a fat line is a rectangle.

" The "Gömböc" is the first homogeneous, convex object having just one stable and one unstable point of equilibrium."

an impossible shape is one sided.

Oh? Haven't you ever made a Moebius Strip?

Oh? Haven't you ever made a Moebius Strip?

That's still a 3-d object.

There's width.

That's still a 3-d object.

There's width.

Judging from your post, it's depth you should be concerned with.

"A shape whose impossibility might have been an elegant theorem, but whose existence may be much more elegant."
Chandler Davis, Editor-in-Chief, The Mathematical Intelligencer

http://www.gomboc.eu/gomboc_english.html

I can't tell why the editor made that comment... he seems to imply that there is an elegant theorem that was supposed to prove that there are no homogenous convex mono-monostatic bodies, but I can't find any such proof :shrug:

Describing impossible shapes is easy.
Trivially, a square circle is impossible.
Almost as trivially, a regular convex 3D polyhedron with exactly ten faces is impossible.
Or, a convex 3D polyhedron with more faces than edges is impossible.

Here's a less trivial impossible shape, by the wonderful M.C. Escher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._C._Escher):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/68/Cube_with_Magic_Ribbons.jpg/300px-Cube_with_Magic_Ribbons.jpg

A line (mathematically speaking) has only length no width. So it has dimension 1. A rectangle has length and width and has dimension 2. So a fat line is a rectangle.

but can a line be so tiny that it has no width dimension? no matter how small you can draw a line, i can always zoom in with a microscope and describe how wide it is in micro measurements.


peace.

but can a line be so tiny that it has no width dimension? no matter how small you can draw a line, i can always zoom in with a microscope and describe how wide it is in micro measurements.


peace.

A line is a mathematical construct...no one can really "draw" a line physically. In that technical sense, this . is not a "point" because it has a definite (though small) height and width.

Yeah, but what we draw is just an approximation of line not mathematical line. Just the same as a drawn tiger is not a real tiger.

Edit: too late.

Hi EFoC,
A true line is physically impossible. Any line that you draw is not a true line, but a 2D shape.

The question in this thread isn't so much about physical possibility, but theoretical possibility - possibility in the land of mathematics.

I wonder if it counts if the viewer of said object is from a different dimension? If the analog for a cube in the 4th dimension is a hypercube, then perhaps there is an analog in another-space that renders three sided/circular squares that aren't considered true triangles/circles somehow. Maybe there is a way to redefine the "z-axis", or use modified spatial dimensions (IE - height, width, and something non-perpendicular to the others, or completely different in it's own function)
Of course, I'm just tossing a foggy wild idea in there. BTW - not trying to derail the original topic (technically, the discussion is about the Gömböc).

Definitely. Topologists will always specify the number of dimensions they're working in, because different theorems apply in different dimensions. There's a joke about this:

A topologist and an applied mathemetician attend a public lecture on geometry in thirteen-dimensional space.
"How did you like it?" the topologist asks afterward.
"My head's spinning", says the applied mathemetician. "How can you possibly visualize thirteen-dimensional space?"
"Easy!" says the topologist. "Just visualize an n-dimensional space, then set n = 13."

That's still a 3-d object.

There's width.

No, a Moebius strip is 2 dimensional.

"A shape whose impossibility might have been an elegant theorem, but whose existence may be much more elegant."
Chandler Davis, Editor-in-Chief, The Mathematical Intelligencer

http://www.gomboc.eu/gomboc_english.htmlI want one of those :)

I don't really know what I would do with it, but just knowing that there are probably alot of work that has been done to make it makes it special somehow.

What does it mean to have only one stable point and one unstable?

Oh, and the rest of the people posting in this thread just doesn't seem to get it...except for Chris Cremin.

If you are concerned about ``existence'' versus ``existence'', read Pentose's book ``Road to Reality''---he has a good explanation of the physical world vs. the Platonic world. In one sense, we can never draw a one dimensional shape, because even an atom has some characteristic thickness. But a one dimensional line surely exists as a mathematical construct---all you have to do is imagine a space where your position is described by exactly one coordinate.

Definitely. Topologists will always specify the number of dimensions they're working in, because different theorems apply in different dimensions. There's a joke about this:

A topologist and an applied mathemetician attend a public lecture on geometry in thirteen-dimensional space.
"How did you like it?" the topologist asks afterward.
"My head's spinning", says the applied mathemetician. "How can you possibly visualize thirteen-dimensional space?"
"Easy!" says the topologist. "Just visualize an n-dimensional space, then set n = 13."

lol. so true.

No, a Moebius strip is 2 dimensional.
a true mobius would probably be an impossible shape because it only has one side and one edge. a mobius you can see and feel is 3 dimensional.

That is the mobius embedded in three dimensional space and it is equally authentic.

a true mobius would probably be an impossible shape because it only has one side and one edge. a mobius you can see and feel is 3 dimensional.

You're entirely missing the point. If this were the case, then EVERY geormetrical shape would be impossible.

I thought this might interest you guys a little.

Terrence McKenna would smoke DMT , psychedelic drug, and be shown impossible shapes by the DMT elves.

Yeah it's crazy to listen to some of his tapes.