You have a volleyball without defects. You poke a hole in it. How many holes does it have in it? (excluding the fill valve - assume there is no fill valve)
#math #topology #words #definitions #holes #context #arbitrary
I posted this in response to this thread:
https://qoto.org/@freemo/107295982688801818
The question conflates terminology between common usage and terms used in a specific branch of mathematics.
π³π±
@Pat Well its not as conflated as you thin, at least not in my opinon.
If I were to "poke a hole" in a volley ball I'd have to take a long sharp stick and poke **all the way** through, in one end, out the other. This would create one hole. If you use my earlier explanation of flattening it to a disc this would be consistent with that.
If you only cut a single **opening** in it without poking a hole all the way through then you didnt create a hole at all, simple turned a sphere into a bowl or cup. Does a bowl have a hole in it? Does a cup? Most would say no. To take the analogy further I think we all agree simply scooping out a dent in something (effectively what making one opening in a hollow sphere is) isnt a hole. However if you poke all the way through a sphere you get the equivelant of a doughnut, now we would all agree there is a hole.
So in laymans terms, if you have a volleyball it has no holes. You cut an opening in it you turned a volllyball into a cup/bowl it still has no holes. You cut a **Second** opening into it, now you you have a hole.
@freemo look up the definition of the word literally anywhere... the cup does not have a hole because the hole defines the cup, so when you speak of the hole in a cup, ones imagines another hole that is not supposed to be there. If a cup was convex it wouldn't be a cup and you'd have to hallow it out to make it into a cup. And no most normal people would no think it necessary to go all the way through the ball and out, unless they have an itch to shoot it, or a desperation to prove themselves right.
Thats pretty much exactly what I said with different words. A cup (no handle) does not have a hole. It isnt because the hole defines the cup, there is literally no hole. A convex surface is not considered to have a hole by any reasonable definition.
Now if you want to get technical holes are very strictly and technically defined in math (though there are two major areas of math that use the term hole, both would be in agreement for these simple use cases).
What "normal people think" isnt really too important to me. Normal people have no consistent definition of a hole so its a moot point. What does matter to me is any definition of a hole which is consistent, and we can dismiss inconsistencies easily.
There are many ways to reason about the cutting of an opening into a sphere that all shows us clearly why its not a hole even by common definition... Say you cut a opening whose size is the size of the equator of the sphere, in other words you cut the sphere into two perfect halves, putting a hole in it that consumes half the material... would anyone look at what is effectively identical to a bowl, even though it is clearly a volleyball and go "that volleyball has a hole in it?
What if i cut an even larger opening in the volleyball such that 95% of the material of the volleyball is removed leaving just 5% of the original volleyball. It would look like a small patch of material approximately appearing to be that of a slightly convex disc. Would anyone in their right mind look at that little scrap of material and go "it has a hole in it"... no of course not.
Any rigorous reasoning about cutting single openings in spheres makes it quite clear there is no **consistent** way you can call that a hole and in fact in almost all scenarios most would say it isnt a hole. The rare edge cases where someone would call it a hole is arbrbitrary and so wildly inconsistent with the others we can dismiss it out of hand as being incorrect despite common usage.
Now if we want to get into formal definitions, then it is consistent with everything i just said above and extends those ideas even further and more formally.
@freemo
>A cup (no handle) does not have a hole. It isnt because the hole defines the cup, there is literally no hole.
How is hat even logic. The cup is a hole, and there is no hole? Therefore there is no cup? Your original argument is just a play on words, A cup has no hole is the same as saying a piece of tube has no hole. Since the tube is defined by two obvious holes (or according to your bizarre definition just one one), those are are contextually ignored one understands that there are no additional holes in. Now you're just going completely crazy it seems trying to salvage an argument.
>What "normal people think" isnt really too important to me. Normal people have no consistent definition of a hole so its a moot point.
I'm glad you don't care about englsih language, I previously thought that you simply too stupid to understand and use it properly. Meanwhile majority of people can easily tell that a shirt has 4 holes by definition, 1 entry and 3 exits, which together define 3 through-holes.
>What if i cut an even larger opening in the volleyball such that 95%
Cutting half or the 95 percent off is not making a hole or even an opening, it's a completely different thing and you are derailing.
> How is hat even logic. The cup is a hole, and there is no hole?
No, a cup **is not a hole** and it also has no hole.
A tube has a hole because it meets the formal definition of a hole (it goes all the way through).. a cup has no hole because it does not meet the definition of a hole (it does not go all the way through).
Your problem is you are incorrectly defining a hole as an opening, which is not the technical definition of a hole.
Here you go, a math expert clearly explaining the formal/technical definition of a hole. He is reiterating exactly what I said and even goes over the exact examples we used:
@freemo If you are going to give a natural language name to your rigorous nonsense make sure it fits or it'll make you look stupid. I already mentioned that what you call a hole should actually be called a through-hole. You may shorten it to hole, if you narrow the discussion to specific topological theory, but that's not what you were doing were you? Were you posing the question rigorously? If yes then I guess we discovered yet another thing that you are utterly incompetent at.
"yet another thing that you are utterly incompetent at."
If you cant see how that is both rude and behaving like a school child having a tantrum then I simply cant help you.
Every day you seem to have a tantrum over someone disagreeing with you and instead of being an adult about it you just wail and name call... you are kind of the laughing stock of the server at this point, the child who thinks he is an adult and the only reason I protect you at all when reports come in time and time again is because even people with the maturity of a toddler deserve a voice.
@freemo
"yet another thing that you are utterly incompetent at."
oh, I see, I really apologize that those words hurt your feelings. What I meant is that that would have been the case, if you were being rigorous in the question you posed, which to me is obviously not the case, you see? How that means that I'm not name calling you and simply contradicting your claim that you were rigorous? With perhaps a little bit of flare. Maybe if you wipe the tears off?
I never said they hurt my feelings, no they didnt hurt my feelings. My feelings are the issue, the issue is that your so emotionally insecure that you **try** to hurt my feelings anytime you are shown to be wrong, and not just mine you do it with everyone who ever disagrees with you on anything.
While my feelings might not be hurt I really have little interest in debating shit that a person is completely incapable of following along and evaluating maturely and just goes off on a hour tantrum everytime he is proven wrong on a point he cant defend logically... are my feelings hurt, no, is my time wasted by having to listen to you wine and have a tantrum instead of addressing the points raised against you, yes. So much so your attitude is the only relevant thing left because if it isnt addressed me and the rest of the server just sit here laughing at your tantrums and having out time wasted day in and day out.
@freemo The last point in discussion was you trying to derail it by claiming that your original original question was rigorously posed and that I'm out of place to even mention natural language, in such an obviously technical context that was clearly tagged as geometric topology or something. I simply asked you to confirm that you indeed consider that to be the case, in such a way as to make it obvious that I do not, hoping you would maybe provide some irrefutable evidence to settle the matter. But alas I apparently attacked your person in some way that you can not even tell me.
No not that you are out of place for using a loose and inconsistent definition of a hole. Only that your arguing that because you arbitrarily picked a definition that can not arrive at an answer you shouldnt be surprised you didnt arrive at an answer. And then complain the question is nonsense just because you picked the one definition that wont help you.
As I said before you can pick whatever definition you want, some will give you clear objective indisputable answers, others will give you noise with no answer. I really dont care what you go with per se.
But you are on a STEM server, if you cant infer that a question is asked technically on a STEM server, particularly when a non-technical definition wont arrive at an answer, then I dont know what to tell ya. What I do know is every word out of your mouth has been a waste of my time and could have been summarized as "If I pick the most general and useless definition I cant answer this"... sure, great, anything beyond that to argue your point is noise.
But hey maybe I'm asking to much for someone to be able to infer that a question posed by the admin of a STEM instance might actually be looking for a technical STEM-centric answer ::shrug::
What I do know is regardless, your little tantrums when people disagree with you is a disgrace and makes you look horrible, especially when its consistent and a daily problem with you.
@freemo Correctness of an answer that states a number of holes, or a question that asks for a number of holes depends on the definition of a hole. Since you did not clarify the definition in advance, when later on you revealed the definition I simply pointed out that it is nonsensical in context of the natural language, and even suggested a better term, but you just can't stop derailing.
As I said multiple times, the natural language definition does not lead to a objective or consistent answer. So yes it is nonsensical to approach the problem from that angle.
The fact that you suggested your own made up definition is fine and all, but yes I reject definitions you or anyone pull out of thin air in an attempt to resolve a problem that already has well accepted definitions that solve it.
I understand that when a technical question is asked that expects an objective answer I expect people to know that they must rely on formal/technical definitions that are capable of providing objective and consistent answers.
You are welcome to use a non-rigorous definition and admit that using it there is no way to answer the question, thats fine. But dont sit here like an ass and insist a less rigorous definition is the only acceptable one. Rigorous definitions are just as valid and more importantly the only ones that arrive at an answer of any value here.
Keep in mind i also debunked very clearly your assertion in colloquial usage (natural language). You claim ac up has a hole but we dont say so because it is defined by its hole.
No one would look at a vollyball that has 75% of it cut away (a hole according to you, incorrectly) and say "that has a hole in it".. and in this case its exactly like the cup except you dont get the abilityto make the erroneous claim a volleyball is "Defined by its hole". Literally volleyballs arent defined by their hole and in this scenario no sane person would say there was a hole present.
@icedquinn a much better term for "The genus of a connected, orientable surface is an integer representing the maximum number of cuttings along non-intersecting closed simple curves without rendering the resultant manifold disconnected", than a hole
@namark
As for your comment about "literally" looking up the definition of a hole anywhere. Here is the formal definition of a hole that aligns with the normal use of a hole (the only definition we can apply rigerously). I just looked it up "literally anywhere":
The genus of a connected, orientable surface is an integer representing the maximum number of cuttings along non-intersecting closed simple curves without rendering the resultant manifold disconnected.[5] In layman's terms, it is the number of "holes" an object has ("holes" interpreted in the sense of doughnut holes; a hollow sphere would be considered as having zero holes in this sense). A doughnut, or torus, has 1 such hole. A sphere has 0.
@Pat