Talk:Ham Sandwich Theorem

Interesting ... but presumably one is allowed to "line up" the three objects before cutting, right?--Andy Schlafly 23:29, 6 November 2009 (EST)

Nope. Any shapes, any locations (as long as they don't overlap). You can find a plane through the Milky Way, the Andromeda Galaxy, and 3C273. Or think of it this way: a plane can be specified by three numbers (or "degrees of freedom"). That is, ax + by + cz specifies a plane for numbers a, b, and c. You have three constraints: it has to bisect each of the objects. So it works. PatrickD 23:40, 9 November 2009 (EST)

Wow, that is an amazing result. I was going to suggest 1st, 2nd, and 3rd bases as a counterexample, but it's clear that a plane parallel to the field bisects them. Raise 2nd base, and one simply rotates the plane, I suppose.--Andy Schlafly 23:52, 9 November 2009 (EST)

reversion of July 9

I have reverted some foolishness. If you thought the Earth/Mars/Jupiter analogy was useless, why didn't you simply remove it, and perhaps replace it with a better one, rather than sticking in the word "no"? Also, the presence of other items, like pickles, has absolutely nothing to do with the theorem. It applies to any Lebesgue-measurable sets, even those that overlap, and has nothing to do with other sets, like pickles, in the vicinity.

I invite you, ELWisty, to explain your actions here. And I invite sysops to review same and decide what to do. SamHB 18:55, 9 July 2011 (EDT)

You didn't mention that I changed the category to topology from analysis; that was because it's a theorem of topology, not analysis. I didn't remove the planetary analogy because I like to leave the evidence of other editors' foolishness in plain sight. The bit about pickles is a joke that usually goes down well when I teach Topology I. Or at least they pretend to find it funny; it's hard to tell when you hold one of their grades in your hands.

ELWisty 22:51, 14 July 2011 (EDT)ELWisty

revert war

As one who hardly did anything until a few weeks ago, you may not realize what a dim view sysops (which I am not) and serious contributors (of which there are many) take to disruptive and insulting characterizations like "willful ignorance". I don't know whether you were referring to me or PatrickD, but, as recently as last December, something like that would have gotten your account closed so fast it would make your head spin.

It is true that I used the words "vandalism" and "parody" in my criticism, but these words have specific meanings at Conservapedia (and, indeed, all wikis) and those characterizations were legitimate.

Your intention in not removing the planet stuff was to "leave the evidence of other editors' foolishness in plain sight"?????? You think that one of the goals of an encyclopedia is as a vehicle whereby editors highlight other editors' ignorance for the public to see???????????

As far as the humor value of the pickle reference, it may well be that you teach topology courses, and that you crack that joke in class, and that you use that joke as a way of illustrating that the truth of the theorem is independent of the presence of other sets, or of overlap among any of the sets. But as you admit, the joke sometimes goes down well, and sometimes doesn't. This doesn't surprise me in the least. Delivering jokes in person is a very different skill. Careful consideration of timing, and reading the audience, is necessary. Humor in writing is very different. It's much harder. Very few people are successful written humorists, while nightclub humorists are very common. I'm sure you can recognize that an encyclopedia math article is not the place for humor, unless the joke is extremely good, which this isn't.

I now invite you to go the to "Gabriel's Horn" article and repair the two errors that it contains. I won't say whether I consider them to be subtle parody or something else. SamHB 01:10, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

Response to SamHB

Having been, at least temporarily, unblocked, I can respond to some of your points.

• By "wilful ignorance" I meant the reversion of "topology" to "analysis"; it is, I repeat, a theorem of topology, not analysis.

• It is definitely no easier to visualize the theorem using Earth, Mars and Jupiter; that's why it's called "the Ham Sandwich Theorem", not "the Three Planets Theorem".

• "You think that one of the goals of an encyclopedia is as a vehicle whereby editors highlight other editors' ignorance for the public to see???????????" Of an encyclopaedia, no. On Conservapedia, it may serve the useful purpose of sending a casual reader to the history to find out what used to be in the article, leading her to doubt the trussworthiness [sic] of CP. I also think that two question marks at most suffice to express incredulity.

• "I'm sure you can recognize that an encyclopedia math article is not the place for humor". See my previous point.

• I'd be interested to learn which two errors you think you've identified in the article on Gabriel's horn.

• "I won't say whether I consider them to be subtle parody or something else." You just did, and I'm hurt.

ELWisty 20:13, 24 July 2011 (EDT)ELWisty

I'm sorry I hurt you.

First, I don't care about whether it is described as a theorem of topology or analysis. In fact, I don't remember just what course covered it when I was a student. My reversions were about other things, and the topology/analysis stuff was collateral damage.

Here are the two objections I had to Gabriel's Horn. The volume is pi, not 3. Do the integral. Also, giving the units as cubic cubits is just bizarre. In mathematical constructions of this sort, it is common to express areas and volumes as "units squared" or "units cubed", where the "units" are left as some abstract thing as befits the object being discussed. Of course, when the theorem is reduced to practice, as in calculating the volume of the Earth, actual physical units are introduced.

And there's another, more subtle problem. Saying that it will be blown by the Archangel Gabriel to announce the Day of Judgement is a completely inappropriate mixing of a mathematical concept with a concept from religious tradition. I don't have the biblical description in front of me, but I doubt that it mentions 1/x. Gabriel's horn is a mathematical concept that takes it's name from a bit of religious tradition.

There should actually be two articles, with appropriate wiki-links. But I'm to tired to fix that just now.

SamHB 23:00, 2 August 2011 (EDT)

OK, I'm coming out with my hands up. This summer I was neither teaching nor travelling, so I whiled away some time inserting liberal deceit into CP. However, I can't continue in the face of your obvious sincerity. It was your apology for hurting me that finally made up my mind. For what it's worth, I was pretending to be hurt because you clearly didn't agree with me that my Gabriel's Horn article was subtle parody.

I've checked out some of your mathematical articles at CP, and they seem to be sound, unlike those created by by anybody else. I urge you, in all sincerity, to give up working on CP and find a better use for your time and talents. In the first place, you're never going to catch up with Wikipedia. Second, Conservapedia is not a serious site. It's a playpen for Aschafly and his cronies to promote their extreme right-wing and biblical-literalist views in front of a tiny audience, indulge in mutual back-scratching, and build up their self-esteem by ban-hammering anyone who deviates by a micron from their line. In short, it's a joke.

On a few specific points: You should care about whether the Ham Sandwich Theorem is described as a theorem of analysis or topology. They're different subjects, one should get it right, and "I don't remember just what course covered it when I was a student" is a cop-out. The use of cubic cubits was, I thought, a clear indicator that I was using the "biblical value" of pi. To digress, while I am a dyed-in-the-wool atheist, I don't regard 1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2 as reasons for disbelief; 3 is good enough for government work, and probably for God's work. I do find it amusing that many believers, Jewish and Christian, have expended a lot of effort on coming up with explanations why exactly 3 was, in fact, right. Mostly they're variations on Rabbi Nehemiah, who of the four combinations of inside/outside diameter and inside/outside circumference picked the least likely. There are more bizarre explanations, such as that the measurement of the circumference was made by six men, who instead of stretching a rope around the circumference, inexplicably made a hexagon.

Finally, I am indeed inappropriately mixing mathematics and theology. By now you should know why.

I'm out of here. Best wishes and good luck to you.

PS. The link in the references section of my user page is to one of the greatest comedy routines since Aristophanes. Peter Cook's character is E.L. Wisty.

ELWisty 20:02, 5 August 2011 (EDT)ELWisty

What you've written above is about what I thought was going on. As far as your advice to me to edit elsewhere, you might want to go Wikiversity and have a look around. SamHB 21:28, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

ElWisty, the only thing you've confirmed about this site is the fact that you're a liar. You've inserted "liberal deceit" by your own admission, which means there's nothing wrong with this site or the people in it. Thank you for proving our point. Karajou 10:14, 19 August 2011 (EDT)