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)