MHB Visualising Topology: How Important is it to Get the Visualisation Clear?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Topology
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the challenges of visualizing complex concepts in topology, specifically the projective plane as constructed from a sphere. The original poster expresses concern about whether a clear visualization is necessary for understanding or if a vague intuition suffices, particularly when transitioning to algebraic topology. Members discuss the importance of visualization in grasping topological concepts, noting that while intuition can aid understanding, formal analysis and algebra are also crucial. Various methods to visualize the projective plane are suggested, including analogies like "wrap-around" effects from video games and physical manipulations of a sphere. The conversation highlights the balance between intuitive understanding and rigorous mathematical analysis, emphasizing that while visual aids can enhance comprehension, they may not fully capture the abstract nature of mathematical objects. Resources for further visualization are sought, indicating a shared struggle with these concepts among learners.
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading myself into a basic understanding go topology with a view to algebraic topology.

I try to get a visual picture and intuitive feel for what I am learning .. but wonder if I am worrying too much about gaining this type of understanding early on ...

For example I am at the moment struggling to visualise the projective plane as constructed from a sphere as indicated in the book Surface Topology by Firby and Gardiner … see page 36 of their book ….

View attachment 2198Should I really worry about visualising this construction … or would a vague intuition do … then work from the analysis and algebra ...

How important is it to get the visualisation clear? What do members think? Or do we just work with the formal algebra/analysis ...

BTW does anyone know of any text or online resources that helps one visualise the above construction ...

I hope I can progress with only vague impressions of the constructions … do others have difficulties with visualising the constructions of topology?

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Peter said:
I am reading myself into a basic understanding go topology with a view to algebraic topology.

I try to get a visual picture and intuitive feel for what I am learning .. but wonder if I am worrying too much about gaining this type of understanding early on ...

For example I am at the moment struggling to visualise the projective plane as constructed from a sphere as indicated in the book Surface Topology by Firby and Gardiner … see page 36 of their book ….

View attachment 2198Should I really worry about visualising this construction … or would a vague intuition do … then work from the analysis and algebra ...

How important is it to get the visualisation clear? What do members think? Or do we just work with the formal algebra/analysis ...

BTW does anyone know of any text or online resources that helps one visualise the above construction ...

I hope I can progress with only vague impressions of the constructions … do others have difficulties with visualising the constructions of topology?

Peter
I am re-posting the above post as there have been some problems - which Jameson and others have now corrected … but i need to re-paste the image which is not showing … and I cannot edit the above ….

So my above post should read:

==================================================================

I am reading myself into a basic understanding go topology with a view to algebraic topology.

I try to get a visual picture and intuitive feel for what I am learning .. but wonder if I am worrying too much about gaining this type of understanding early on ...

For example I am at the moment struggling to visualise the projective plane as constructed from a sphere as indicated in the book Surface Topology by Firby and Gardiner … see page 36 of their book ….https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/2210

Should I really worry about visualising this construction … or would a vague intuition do … then work from the analysis and algebra ...

How important is it to get the visualisation clear? What do members think? Or do we just work with the formal algebra/analysis ...

BTW does anyone know of any text or online resources that helps one visualise the above construction ...

I hope I can progress with only vague impressions of the constructions … do others have difficulties with visualising the constructions of topology? Do problems with visualising spaces and constructions heavily impede understanding of the mathematics of topology?

What do MHB members think?

Peter

==================================================================

EDIT : I am beginning to think that I am trying to see too much in this construction and hence worrying over what is possibly a simple construction … but maybe hard to visualise as the construction progresses step by step …

Maybe someone knows of a video or animated graphic that shows progress 'point by point' ...
 
Last edited:
There are a couple of ways to do this, which depend on "how faithful" you want to be to the mathematics.

In older video games, screens used to have a feature called "wrap-around": for example if a moving object exited the top of the screen, it would re-enter at the bottom. In this context, the projective plane can be viewed as "wrap-around with mirror image": if an object moves off the top of the screen moving right, it reappears at the bottom moving LEFT.

Another way to look at it is this way: Imagine a 2-D drawing with perspective-all the parallel lines share a common "vanishing point" (which is kind of like "the point at infinity").

The way I like to view it personally, though is THIS way: take a sphere (like a basketball) and slice it open. Now flip one edge of the cut upside-down (an actual basketball is probably not "stretchy" enough to do this), and start to sew the edges back together (you'll have to start in the middle, because the "ends" would just tear). The basketball will assume a strange "puckered" shape (much like most mobius bands you make out of paper have a "kink" in them), and you can see that you can "mostly" do it, but you are getting some "impossible" holes to close at the ends. The only way we can "finish" (in three dimensions, at least) would be to allow the basketball to go though itself (self-intersection).
 
Deveno said:
There are a couple of ways to do this, which depend on "how faithful" you want to be to the mathematics.

In older video games, screens used to have a feature called "wrap-around": for example if a moving object exited the top of the screen, it would re-enter at the bottom. In this context, the projective plane can be viewed as "wrap-around with mirror image": if an object moves off the top of the screen moving right, it reappears at the bottom moving LEFT.

Another way to look at it is this way: Imagine a 2-D drawing with perspective-all the parallel lines share a common "vanishing point" (which is kind of like "the point at infinity").

The way I like to view it personally, though is THIS way: take a sphere (like a basketball) and slice it open. Now flip one edge of the cut upside-down (an actual basketball is probably not "stretchy" enough to do this), and start to sew the edges back together (you'll have to start in the middle, because the "ends" would just tear). The basketball will assume a strange "puckered" shape (much like most mobius bands you make out of paper have a "kink" in them), and you can see that you can "mostly" do it, but you are getting some "impossible" holes to close at the ends. The only way we can "finish" (in three dimensions, at least) would be to allow the basketball to go though itself (self-intersection).

Thanks Deveno ... Helpful and interesting post ...

Just wondering about what (exactly) you mean by "faithful to the mathematics"

Peter
 
Mathematics typically characterizes an object by properties it possesses, not "objects in and of themselves".

When we "visualize" a mathematical object, we make a comparison to real, physical objects that typically possesses "extraneous" properties (such as the color of the basketball, or the make and model of the monitor on which a video game is displayed). Often, the comparisons are to "drawings" that are definitely NOT "the objects themselves".

So I was just alluding the the gap you yourself noticed between the "abstract" presentations of $\Bbb{RP}^2$, and how we PICTURE it.
 
Similar to the 2024 thread, here I start the 2025 thread. As always it is getting increasingly difficult to predict, so I will make a list based on other article predictions. You can also leave your prediction here. Here are the predictions of 2024 that did not make it: Peter Shor, David Deutsch and all the rest of the quantum computing community (various sources) Pablo Jarrillo Herrero, Allan McDonald and Rafi Bistritzer for magic angle in twisted graphene (various sources) Christoph...
Thread 'My experience as a hostage'
I believe it was the summer of 2001 that I made a trip to Peru for my work. I was a private contractor doing automation engineering and programming for various companies, including Frito Lay. Frito had purchased a snack food plant near Lima, Peru, and sent me down to oversee the upgrades to the systems and the startup. Peru was still suffering the ills of a recent civil war and I knew it was dicey, but the money was too good to pass up. It was a long trip to Lima; about 14 hours of airtime...

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Back
Top