• Codex@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    1 month ago

    A lot of things seem obvious until someone questions your assumptions. Are these closed forms on the Euclidean plane? Are we using Cartesian coordinates? Can I use the 3rd dimension? Can I use 27 dimensions? Can I (ab)use infinities? Is the embedded space well defined, and can I poke a hole in the embedded space?

    What if the parts don’t self-intersect, but they’re so close that when printed as physical parts the materials fuse so that for practical purposes they do intersect because this isn’t just an abstract problem but one with real-world tolerances and consequences?

    • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 month ago

      Yes, the paradox of Gabriel’s Horn presumes that a volume of paint translates to an area of paint (and that paint when used is infinitely flat). Often mathematics and physics make strange bedfellows.

    • AVincentInSpace@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      until someone questions your assumptions

      Oh, come on. This is math. This is the one place in the universe where all of our assumptions are declared at the outset and questioning them makes about as much sense as questioning “would this science experiment still work in a universe where gravity went the wrong way”. Please just let us have this?

      • weker01
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        If that were true almost every non trivial proof would be way way wayyyy too long.