Is There a Shape with More than 2^{\aleph_0} Sides in the Euclidean Plane?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter cragar
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Shape
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the possibility of having a shape in the Euclidean plane with more than \(2^{\aleph_0}\) sides, exploring concepts related to geometry, cardinality, and dimensionality. Participants consider the implications of defining "sides" and the potential need for higher-dimensional spaces.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Debate/contested, Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that a fractal might be an example of a shape with more than \(2^{\aleph_0}\) sides.
  • Others emphasize the need to define "side," suggesting that if a side is an ordered pair of vertices, then more than \(2^{\aleph_0}\) values for each vertex would be necessary.
  • A later reply indicates that defining a side as an ordered pair seems promising, but concludes that it may not be feasible in the x-y plane.
  • One participant notes that there are \(R^R\) choices for possible shapes, implying a vast number of potential configurations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the definition of "side" and its implications for the existence of such shapes. There is no consensus on whether a shape with more than \(2^{\aleph_0}\) sides can exist in the Euclidean plane or if higher-dimensional spaces are necessary.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the ambiguity in defining "side" and the implications of cardinality and dimensionality, which remain unresolved.

cragar
Messages
2,546
Reaction score
3
Do you think it is possible to have a shape in the euclidean plane that has more
than [itex]2^{\aleph_0}[/itex] sides. maybe some crazy fractal.
and if not in the plane would we maybe have to go to infinite dimensional space.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Define "side".

Anyway, we have that [itex]\{(x,y)~\vert~x,y\in \mathbb{R}\}[/itex] has cardinality [itex]2^{\aleph_0}[/itex]. So your figure would have to repeat its "sides" infinitely often.
 
micromass said:
Define "side".

Well, if a "side" is an ordered pair of vertices then you'd need more than [itex]2^{\aleph_0}[/itex] possible values for each vertex in order to have more than [itex]2^{\aleph0}[/itex] possible ordered pairs of vertices.

That sounds like you need a space whose dimensionality is larger than the cardinality of R.
 
thanks for the responses. defining a side with an ordered pair seems like a good idea
you it seems like you couldn't do it in the x-y plane. it does seem like I
have R^R choices though for possible shapes.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
8K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
9K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K