/sci/ - Science & Math

What are the applications of toruses?

>be browsing topology lectures on youtube.
>see this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gq2ucvK3QiI

haha what the fuck? Is this a professor somewhere?

ITT other weird math shit you've found on youtube.

>>3131426
>>3132547
Fuck yeah, torus master race.

>>3126929
The cyclicality of it is surprising. From caveman, to (once again) caveman.

>>2423318

would 'pro-space', 1<, and anti-space, >0 (the sum of the two spaces - 'almost' half of each other - but not to include the "neutral space" which isn't without force but contains BOTH forces and oscillates to resonate with preventing/creating collisions between the two apparent " real halves of space". One-half-of-space is where we reside and so it is apparent to us here on the "old home ball of dirt" as "all-that-exists" (even though it's becoming abundantly clear that the part of space we can see and reside in doesn't seem like quite enough stuff. The neutral is both forces and neither, always reversing or fulfilling the charge then repelling then releasing then needing fulfillment and being requited... except reversed again so as to oppose the two real spaces while remaining a separate and equal and opposite entity. The function of "separator", (.), leads me to conjecture that (.) is actually caused be a/the convergence of the two forces.

accounting for the occurrence of the importance of the number, or grouping, of three in what appears to us to be physical space. three plays an important role in the interactions of our space - seemingly because three is an integral part of what our space is made from. makes sense that the whole is usually the sum of the components.

this would make the interaction of our physical space appear to be the anti -

where we have "vacuum" (for want of another term) - in that portion (anti's real space) has mass - (it would have to be "anti-mass", naturally - as that's the only way to balance the charges - well, considering the neutral items (which can't be neutral after all else they'd slip out of this space or whatever space they're in as the whole thing has to remain fairly balanced).

picture marginally related - like a torus but not...

>>2349320
If you take into consideration the dimension of time, perhaps so. But I find it to be less a literal shape of the universe, and more as a model for all the probabilities that may occur in the universe relative to their positions in time.

>>2338492
There was an interesting thread on here yesterday that dealt with a similar subject, although it seems to now've been bumped off because of this stupid Magnets n' Vampires raid, but one such post in the thread essentially surmounted that time, and thusly the universe, has always existed, as it passes through infinite periods of destruction and reconstruction (i.e. a "big crunch" followed by a "big bang" ad infinitum), and a model of the dimension of time would be much like a very, very large torus (pictured here).

It was something like that, anyway.

>>2334203

and your diagram is wrong. it should be a torus. a rather large torus, but a torus nonetheless.

people need to quit thinking in two dimensions...

Why does no one ever try to troll mathematicians?

Fundamental group of a circle is trivial.

Break the circle into the interval [0,2pi), which is obviously contractible. Therefore, the fundamental group of a circle has generators the zero cycle {0}, and is therefore trivial.

Pic related, it has fundamental group Z.

according to /x/, space is finite and it's shaped like this