What's the circumference of a one foot diameter mobius strip?

Uncle Al <[Only registered users see links. ].net> wrote in message news:<[Only registered users see links. ].net>...

Cut the nonsense Uncle Puke(;^(>

Sam Wormley <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message news:<[Only registered users see links. ]>...

A lotta nonsense Sammy.

Mark Fergerson <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message news:<jjixc.1553$1c4.713@fed1read06>...
From here to there.

Hardly; Mark. Try 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000 pints. That'd be closer.

"Donald G. Shead" wrote:

Not at all.

[Only registered users see links. ] (Donald G. Shead) wrote in message news:<48402bae.0406071644.2c6a8360@posting.google. com>...

I'd say it would be 2pi (which happens to be Indonesian for
"squirrel") feet.


For all you doubters here is a photo of a half-full 3-D Klein bottle.
It has no interior but with the aid of gravity holds water none the
less. This seems perfectly fair, since an ordinary bottle would not
fare well without gravity either.

http://plus.maths.org/issue26/featur...ndex-gifd.html

As to how much 4-D water a 4-D quart Klein bottle would hold in a
gravitational field, that would have to be ein vierkwart.

Donald G. Shead wrote:


If you remember that a _real_ Mobius strip has zero
thickness, and ignore the part of the strip outside the
centerline (which is embedded in the thickness of the
paper), pi feet.

If you insist on measuring it as if it had two "sides",
you're actually measuring along the centerline of a much
larger (non-Mobius) strip twisted back on itself, separated
by the "thickness" of the physical strip.

[Only registered users see links. ]

For an expanded version:

[Only registered users see links. ]

A question for you: assume you build a skeletal "Mobius
sphere" per the directions at the bottom; what's its volume?

Many of us learned this stuff in High School; some earlier.

What was your point?



You really ought to know better:

[Only registered users see links. ]

in stock, or custom order. See:

[Only registered users see links. ]

note "Nominal volume 350 ml (12 fluid ounces)", which
does _not_ contradict:

"Actual volume 0.0 ml (0 fluid ounces) (plus or minus 13
ml)" for the same container.

Also see:

[Only registered users see links. ]

note "Displacement 825 ml (28 fluid ounces) About half a
pint inside, half a pint outside", which does _not_ contradict:

"Actual volume 0.0 ml (0.000 fluid ounces) Zero inside,
zero outside" for the same container.

Order a quart model, and convert units at your convenience.

Don't go out of your way looking for "paradoxes".

Mark L. Fergerson

[Only registered users see links. ] (Frisbie Einstein) wrote in message news:<ac4e6c8f.0406082134.4a26e2d4@posting.google. com>...

A what? Klein bottles are only two dimensional except for the depth of
the lines they are drawn with.

It will fare well with a cap on it!!

In sci.math, Donald G. Shead
<[Only registered users see links. ]>
wrote
on 7 Jun 2004 17:44:51 -0700
<[Only registered users see links. ] >:

Depends on how one characterizes the problem.

[Only registered users see links. ]

specifies a Moebius strip, and a method by which one can
compute the edge length, which is unfortunately not that simple.


A quart, of course. Next question?

--
#191, [Only registered users see links. ]
It's still legal to go .sigless.

[Only registered users see links. ] (Donald G. Shead) wrote in message news:<48402bae.0406090257.1b163336@posting.google. com>...

Well, that's not what Klein thought, but what does he know? So you
want to talk 2-D bottles. Then its only fair to talk 2-D water. And
2-D gravity, that attracts to the bottom of the page. Nothing really
changes.


Well maybe we are back in 3-D.

You could make a Klein bottle with a cap if you like. If that is too
radical and you have a need for a 3-D Klein bottle that holds water in
the absence of gravity, you can fill it then stuff the tube with wax.

In the presence of gravity, any concave shape can hold water.

So, you say that a bottle with a cap is still a bottle but a Klein
bottle stuffed with wax is not a Klein bottle. Well, a bottle with a
cap is not topologically equivalent to a bottle without. So it is not
fair to complain because a wax-stuffed Klein bottle is not
topologically equivalent to a Klein bottle without.