Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
Baking (rec.food.baking) For bakers, would-be bakers, and fans and consumers of breads, pastries, cakes, pies, cookies, crackers, bagels, and other items commonly found in a bakery. Includes all methods of preparation, both conventional and not. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
![]()
That might explain it, I guess. So if I see something before me that I
am inclined to refer to as a "coffee cup", how am I to tell whether or not it actually _is_ a coffee cup in some essential way? In fact, it could be your doughnut. (Old topology joke.) My doughnuts are generally not continuously deformable to coffee cups. I'd have to poke them with a stick to make that true, and that would squirt jam everywhere. |
|
|||
![]()
Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:
That might explain it, I guess. So if I see something before me that I am inclined to refer to as a "coffee cup", how am I to tell whether or not it actually _is_ a coffee cup in some essential way? In fact, it could be your doughnut. (Old topology joke.) My doughnuts are generally not continuously deformable to coffee cups. I'd have to poke them with a stick to make that true, and that would squirt jam everywhere. Would topology have still been the field it is today if doughnuts had not existed? -- Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. |
|
|||
![]()
On 26/08/11 7:36 AM, Peter Moylan wrote:
Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote: That might explain it, I guess. So if I see something before me that I am inclined to refer to as a "coffee cup", how am I to tell whether or not it actually _is_ a coffee cup in some essential way? In fact, it could be your doughnut. (Old topology joke.) My doughnuts are generally not continuously deformable to coffee cups. I'd have to poke them with a stick to make that true, and that would squirt jam everywhere. Would topology have still been the field it is today if doughnuts had not existed? But when I was a child in England, doughnuts were amorphous lumps and were definitely not ring-shaped and had no visible hole. It took me a while before I understood what Americans writers were talking about when they said "donut-shaped". I don't think I saw a toroidal doughnut until I was in my twenties. -- Robert Bannister |
|
|||
![]() "Peter Moylan" wrote in message . au... Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote: That might explain it, I guess. So if I see something before me that I am inclined to refer to as a "coffee cup", how am I to tell whether or not it actually _is_ a coffee cup in some essential way? In fact, it could be your doughnut. (Old topology joke.) My doughnuts are generally not continuously deformable to coffee cups. I'd have to poke them with a stick to make that true, and that would squirt jam everywhere. Would topology have still been the field it is today if doughnuts had not existed? All topology textbooks would contain pictures of coffee cups. Or topologically identical people? pjk |
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
|
|||
![]()
Actually it's in the title of this thread: "doughnut, coffee cup, scissors, pretzel, ..."
|
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|