Difference between revisions of "Talk:Ham Sandwich Theorem"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Wow, that is an amazing result.) |
(→reversion of July 9: new section) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
:: 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.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:52, 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.--[[User:Aschlafly|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. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 18:55, 9 July 2011 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 22:55, July 9, 2011
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)