Feynman's Orange Riddle: Impossible or Not?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around Richard Feynman's humorous engagement with topology students regarding the impossibility of cutting an orange into pieces and reassembling it to create a larger object, likened to the sun. The conversation references the Banach-Tarski paradox, which illustrates how intuitive reasoning in mathematics can lead to seemingly impossible conclusions. Feynman emphasizes that with precise definitions, mathematical concepts can make sense, even if they defy common logic. The participants express curiosity about the theorem of immeasurable measure and its implications. Additionally, Feynman’s ability to calculate cube roots faster than an abacus user is mentioned, highlighting his mathematical prowess.
Soff
Messages
36
Reaction score
0
I'm reading "Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman!" which is one of the funniest and interesting books I've ever read!

However, in one paragraph, Feynman is talking with some topology students about a riddle:

The topology students: "You've got an orange, OK? Now you cut the orange into a finite number of pieces, put it back together, and it's as big as the sun. True or false?"
"No holes?"
"No holes!"
"Impossible! There ain't no such a thing."
"Ha! We got him! Everybody gather around! It's So-and-so's theorem of immeasurable measure!"
Just when they think they've got me, I remind them, "But you said an orange! You can't cut the orange peel any thinner than the atoms."...


I understood Feynman argument, but I didn't get the idea of the theorem of immeasurable measure. How can you get an orange as big as the sun?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It's related to this joke:

Q: What's an anagram of Banach-Tarski?

A: Banach-Tarski Banach-Tarski.

Google for it.
 
The point of the story is that mathematicians are always trying to show that intuitive thinking will lead you astray. So they love coming up with examples of something you'd think should be impossible and then they "prove" it's true. Feynman's point it that if they really are honest about their definitions, things really do make sense if you just look at them the right way.
 
I was just reading that book, and was writing my Theory of Knowledge essay.
I also was wondering if the theorem of immeasurable measure existed and if so, what is it?
Feynman is correct in saying that the topologists asked him about splitting an orange finite number of times, so for an orange it was impossible, but as a theory it intrigued me as it could be a 'real' theory where you assume nothing.
 
As long as we're on the topic of Feynman, in the same book was a story of how he was able to calculate cube roots using pad and pencil faster than someone using an abacus.

Does anyone here know how to calculate cube roots on an abacus?
 

Similar threads

Replies
17
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
27
Views
5K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Back
Top