Talk:Möbius strip

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk:Möbius_strip/Archive 1


Contents

[edit] That Scarf

The scarf in the shape of a Möbius strip in no way provides a "demonstration of the mathematical basis of crochet." If I cut a potato in the shape of Alexander Hamilton, I have not shown that he invented tuberous vegetables. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.170.169 (talk) 03:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mobius strip with circular boundary

I found the following reference online. "D. Lerner and D. Asimov. The sudanese mobius band. (video). In SIGGRAPH Video Review, 1984." Does anybody have access to this video? I'd love to see some stills! Sam nead 00:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Objection

Objection presented by Dr. Mugrabi, psychoanalyst: Relying us on the surface's definition, to speak of “two faces” of one surface, shows simply something that we must understand like stupidity. According with Descartes, nor God could give to return 180° a surface to arrive at Another Side of one surface.

we are learning about them in shool and i believe that they have something to do with space.

[edit] 3D versus 2D

Could someone please answer me this:

If you put a hole in the m�bius strip, where does it go to? It goes through the strip and to the same side it started. How does that work?

"Where does it go to?" To "go" somewhere, you have to go "through" something. That is, you are assuming that the Mobius strip has some thickness. It doesn't.
If you do insist that the strip has some thickness (atoms, etc) then you are treating it like a solid, three-dimensional object, and not like a surface. Again there is no mystery: lots of three-dimensional things have only one side, like an orange or a bagel. Sam nead 16:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
The m�bius strip is a surface in three dimentions, and each point on the strip is part of two areas on the strip. Thus, removing the points on an area of the strip would create two breaks in a line drawn around the strip. --Roger Chrisman 22:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Imagine a piece of thick paper, 10 mm wide, 0.5 mm thick, and however long you want. I give the end a half-twist and join the ends together in whatever normal or magical way you like. This is unquestionably a 3D object, being that it has a 0.5 mm thickness. But as far as I can tell, this does not prevent it from having any of the amazing properties of a legitimate mobius strip. If one makes a hole in it, that hole starts on one side, goes through the thickness of the paper, and ends up on the SAME side!!! And you can prove it is the same side, by crawing the line as described in the article! Anyone have a problem with that? That's why I say that a mobius strip is (or can be) a 3D object. --Keeves 00:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Keeves: What you are describing is three-dimensional, but it is not a Mobius strip. Mobius strips are surfaces, and so are two dimensional. Said another way -- a Mobius strip is a mathematical abstraction and not a real object. It is a special kind of surface. Sam nead 03:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Roger: The Mobius strip need not be embedded in three-space. It is a "space" all on its own. Sam nead 03:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I stand corrected. Thanks! --Keeves 16:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I view the mobius is more like 3cm wide, 10cm long and 0cm high. In our dimension te figure does not exist, but theoreticly it does. But in our world everything has thickness, so a truely 2-D object does not exist in our universe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jodra13579 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cutting Concerns

Alternatively, if you cut along a Möbius strip about a third of the way in from the edge, you will get two strips: One is a thinner Möbius strip - it is the center third of the original strip. The other is a long strip with two half-twists in it (not a Möbius strip) - this is a neighborhood of the edge of the original strip.

This contradicts what is said above:

If the strip is cut along the above line, instead of getting two separate strips, it becomes one long strip with two half-twists in it (not a Möbius strip). This happens because the original strip only has one edge which is twice as long as the original strip of paper. By cutting you have created a second independent edge, half of which was on each side of the knife or scissors. If you cut this new, longer strip down the middle, you get two strips wound around each other.

Right? There the same steps. Joerite 04:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

You lost some context for the second quote: "the above line" was drawn in the middle (half-way from the edge), not ⅓ from the edge. Try it for yourself and see what happens:) It sounds weird, and perhaps counterintuitive to people not familiar with the Möbius strip, which is why it's mentioned. DMacks 16:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
So cut halfway across the width and you get one strip, but cut one third of the way and you get two strips? What happens at 2/5 of the way across? 3/7 of the way? 4/9? Seems fishy to me - how close do you have to get to "halfway" before you end up with one strip? Where did I put those scissors....?143.252.80.100 21:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Interesting thought experiment. I think what actually happens if you cut 1/3 of the way across, is, when you get all the way around once your scissors WON'T intersect your starting point. Instead you'll be at the 2/3 point, and can continue cutting all the way around again, until you do get back to the 1/3 point. But wouldn't that give you THREE strips when you do get back to the start? That doesn't make any sense either, though...when you finally finish the cut you're clearly only separating two strips. Help, my head is going to explode! Middlenamefrank 21:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
You're right in that the "first" time around, you wind up 2/3 across. As I visualize it more generally, the issue is that there is only one edge (in the sense of a normal sheet of paper) on the strip. So if you start "some distance x from the edge", when you have traveled once around the loop, you are now that same distance from the edge, but now "the edge" is now across the loop from where it was when you started. You haven't really crossed' the middle so much as wrapped around it. So you peel the edges off the strip as one loop and leave the middle section as the other loop. DMacks 22:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
There's nothing particularly special about 1/3. The point is whether you cut along the center circle or not. If you cut along the center circle, you will get an orientable band. If you basically trim off the edge (cutting along some distance less than half the width of the band) when you come once around, you find you need to make another trip around to finish off the cutting. Of course, if you decide not to go around again, but just join the ends of the cut together, that's fine and gives you the same result as cutting along the center circle. In real life, where you can't really cut along the exact center (everything is approximate), that's what you're really doing. That should answer your question about how close you can get. If you get close enough, when cutting you will probably decide to join up the cut after only one trip around the band because the ends of the cut are close enough. --C S (Talk) 08:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How to add the twist mathematically?

I understand how a Mobius strip is a fiber bundle, the result of crossing the unit interval with a circle, but in that formulation how does one describe the twist soas not to just get a cylinder? (I haven't taken a course on topology; let me know if this isn't a sensible question.) �Ben FrantzDale 04:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Your first sentence is incorrect. The Mobius strip is not ...the result of crossing the unit interval with a circle... The Mobius strip is not a direct product. However, you are correct when you say that the Mobius strip is a fiber bundle. best, Sam nead 15:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, so then how is it a fiber bundle? �Ben FrantzDale 15:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
A parametric plot of a Mobius strip
A parametric plot of a Mobius strip
Take a piece of lined paper (what a great adjective! Much better than ruled) and with a pen draw five closely spaced (and evenly spaced) vertical lines, perpendicular to the lines of the paper. Cut along the outer two lines to get a skinny rectangle of paper. Glue the short ends together, with a half twist, to get a Mobius strip. Notice each of the paper lines meet the middle pen line in a single point. Also, for every point on the middle pen line, there is a paper line going through that point. That is, for every point of the pen line there is one and only one paper line associated to it. These paper lines are bundled together to form the Mobius strip. So the Mobius strip is a bundle over the pen line (a copy of the circle) with fibres being the paper lines (copies of the closed interval).
ps. The second and fourth pen lines don't play any role in this discussion. I just added them to match the picture above. Also, my description above is very similar to the discussion of the Mobius strip in the article on fiber bundles. You might also be interested in the articles on ruled surfaces and ruled paper. best, Sam nead 15:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Power logo

I want to add the Power Architecture logo (Image:Power-architecture-logo.png) to this page because it's a modern and current example of a logo that uses a M?bius strip. It wasn't chosen because it was pretty but because it represented something to those who use it, in this case "flexibility", "diversity", "infinity", "curiosity" and "discovery".[1] The way they charge logo and use the symbol is relevant to this article. Just like the Recycle-logo is relevant for the same reasons.

Even if I don't have any problems comming up with reasons why the logo should be on this page (I think it's obvious, certainly since there's already a logo on it) I object to the suggestion that I should state my case here and getting it approved before adding it. The way I've used Wikipedia, and seen it used, one certainly should argue when deleting something, not adding something. The last deletion was seemingly without merit or cause, just petty. -- Henriok 17:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The big difference between the recycling logo and the Power logo is that the recycling logo is public domain, whereas the Power logo is fair use. mrholybrain's talk 18:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it's a pretty clear fair use of the logo here. It isn't here to brand a product but as a piece of art, clearly on topic and relevant to the sub section (art and technology). -- Henriok 14:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I would argue that another difference between the two logos is that one is essentially everywhere you look, while the other is somewhat obscure. The Mobius strip page should be about Mobius strips, not about Power Architecture. Perhaps it would be most appropriate to edit the Power Architecture page. Currently there is only a short sentence describing the logo. You could add to that page "Notice that the logo, in the shape of a Mobius strip, represents..." Best, Sam nead 00:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Are you really playing the obscurity card here? It should be here even more because it's not well known, it's an encyclopedia after all and people come here to find stuff they didn't know about. People interessted in Möbius strips should get a fair sample of when it is used, and such examples should not be removed when they are readily available. There's already listed several instances where Möbius stips are used, and I think there should be even more examples available on this page. I understand that some are frightened about logos and think "fair use" is more like "not use" so is it OK with you guys if I just write a blurb and just link to it? And seriously.. There's no risk of this page being about Power Arch even if it's logo is shown inline. No one is thinking this page is about recycling stuff now is it? -- Henriok 14:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Look, the fair use label says that the Power arch logo can be used to discuss Power architecture. Nothing else. That is United States copyright law for you. Putting the logo on this page is copyright infringement. mrholybrain's talk 16:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that there are other obscure uses of the Mobius strip on the page. I would be happy to discuss removing some of the less interesting ones. On the other hand, none of those references come as close to being advertising as the Power logo does. Hmmm. Perhaps we could create a "Popular culture" section for the rock band references, and so on. Then the Power logo could go there - advertising counts as popular culture.... I am not really excited about this suggestion, however. Best, Sam nead 12:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section on technology

The section on technology and science is very cryptic and poorly typeset. Please edit it into something reasonable. Best,Sam nead 23:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] two sided strip

i'm too lazy to read so does it say that a strip op paper in a mobeous strip two sided? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.158.185.61 (talk) 23:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

If you're too lazy to read the article, you're probably too lazy to read the answer here either. DMacks 00:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I bet most people will be too lazy to try and figure out what on earth you could possibly be asking. --C S (Talk) 05:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Animation

I have created a short animation on Mathematica showing that a moebius strip is non-orientable. It might be worth putting it in the article or creating a link to it. How would I go about this and what would be a good video format to use? John Wallbank 11:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recycling Mobius Loop

Is it just me or does the Mobius loop not look Mobius at all? I can see an inner side and an outer side. Am I viewing it wrong? Gelsamel 03:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The sides switch places on the half-twist. Thus it has only one side, which is both inner and outer. Admiral Norton (talk) 00:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

The introduction of this article was very hard to read for a non-mathematician. Is it necessary to include all those mathematical details at the very start? This detracts from the article's other interesting points about the properties of the strip that are curious and interesting for the non-technical reader. (I'm talking about things like "boundary component," "non-orientable," "ruled surface," "developable surface" - etc.) Thoughts? Jpp42 10:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC) i thought that the mobius strip had something to do with space and was an object in the space so it was expremly hard to read and the mothmatical terms were hard and made no sense for my project so i did not understand what it was and was even more confused than when i started. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.165.144 (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Transmissionsriemen.jpg

Conveyor belt in the shape of an Möbius strip to power an threshing machine by an steam tractor
Conveyor belt in the shape of an Möbius strip to power an threshing machine by an steam tractor

This image from Commons was just added to the article with the caption: "Conveyor belt in the shape of an Möbius strip to power an threshing machine by an steam tractor". However, if I'm not mistaken, the belt in the picture does not actually seem to be a Möbius strip; if you trace the belt, you'll find that the same side is always the outside. Or am I just looking at it wrong? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed the exact same thing - unless there's some part we're not seeing. It's quite a confusing image for readers though, most of whom will probably notice it too. Seaserpent85Talk 13:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so I'm not alone. Thanks. I've removed the image from the article for now, at least until someone disagrees, and have added it here instead. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
True. It has 2 half-twists. Admiral Norton (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What is a 3D Möbius strip called?

I know that a true Möbius strip has no thickness, so do 3D representations have a particular name? Since any way to "create" one in the real world would give it thickness, i.e. the thickness of the sheet of paper used, these are true Möbius strips. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.16.40.18 (talk) 07:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC) The name of the figure would be a Diahedron. Di- meaning 2 and hedron meaning 3-D figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jodra13579 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Heart on the Right.

I read somewhere that if a Flatlander traveled around a Mobius Strip it would find itself normal but the other Flatlanders reversed (if they were left-hearted, now their hearts are on the right). The others would think that the adventurous Flatlander was reversed. I understand the relativity of this, but I don't understand why either one would be reversed. I tried this by drawing it on a MS already made and one not yet created and the results didn't match up with what I read. COuld someone describe why this is, dare I say it, true? In laymen's terms (id est: no mathematics involved), please. Also, should this be included in the article? Please help! 76.188.26.92 01:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope you figured it out! If not and you are still interested, I think the section on orientation by triangulation in orientability should be of great help. --C S (talk) 08:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why "Sudanese"?

How did the Sudanese Möbius acquire that name? Is there some connection to the African country? Ishboyfay 20:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pop culture section overdone?

The section on pop culture is turning into the tail that wags the dog. I know the Möbius strip is fascinating, but imagine if the article on the circle likewise contained a list of occurrences of the circle in popular culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishboyfay (talk • contribs) 05:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, by all means cut it down to size or eliminate it. It's used as a common symbol and cataloging every time it pops up in a video game, song lyrics, or a corperate logo makes verifying and maintaining the section practically impossible. Zytsef (talk) 07:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I also agree. There is a lot of spam in that section. Sam nead (talk) 18:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think WP:TRIVIA applies here. I agree the section needs to be trimmed. -- Fropuff (talk) 03:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the section entirely. I think this is the best solution to the problem of crap accumulating. It might be worth mentioning in the intro that Mobius strips come up a lot in pop culture, without dedicating a whole section to it, but I'm perfectly happy without it. Zytsef (talk) 03:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think removing it entirely was the best course of action. To quote WP:TRIVIA:

This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all.

There was some useful information in there. I would suggest that it be restored and merged with the following section. -- Fropuff (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Please go ahead if you think there's something useful. However, I believe that none of it is terribly suitable to the subject other than to show that Mobius strips are common symbols. I think the same effect could be had by adding a sentence saying they're common in the intro with maybe a footnote or a couple of examples. Otherwise we get an ever increasing list of junk as people visit the article and say, "hey, I saw a mobius strip the other day. I should add it to this list of trivial occurances in pop culture". But again, if you feel there's something valuable in there, add it back. Zytsef (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Zytsef that removing it all is the cleanest way of fixing the problem. There are a couple of instances that are maybe sufficiently notable to be worth keeping (I would have wavered over the Escher one) but they're not essential to the article and having them there just attracts more cruft. If someone somewhere wrote and published a scholarly review of instances and symbolism of the Möbius strip in popular culture, I'd be happy to include a sentence or two somewhere in the article saying that it occurs frequently and citing the review, but unless we can find such a thing I'd be leery of even saying that much. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)