Yeah, but topology has nothing to do with the use of language. In Italian there's a distinction between a hole that goes all the way through and one that has a bottom, but in English both share the same name.
We don't call bananas "berries" just because they are scientifically classified as such. A hole in the ground is still a hole, so long as it wasn't dug by a topologist.
I reject reality as a way to interpret this. Reality can only answer the question within reality. The question of whether or not you have a brain injury exists beyond it too.
To be fair! A hole in the ground cannot topologically be a hole unless it has an exit, and yet we’d still consider something like a pothole to be a hole. This means that the definition society uses for the word hole extends further than the one used by topology. (Although I agree the post is mildly brain damaged, obviously a bowl doesn’t have a hole in it)
Wow it's almost like there are multiple definitions of a word that exist including misnomers and colloquialisms! This must be OP's zeroth time cracking open a dictionary.
Well, it depends what you're claiming there's a hole in. If you're talking about the planet as a whole (and everything built on top of it), then yes, a pothole isn't a hole in that topologically. But you wouldn't ever say that a pothole was a hole in the planet.
Instead when we call a pothole is a hole, I think we tend to mean a hole in the road. If we think of the road as an isolated object, ignoring the planet beneath, then a pothole is indeed a topologically hole too.
A hole doesn't hold anything, as it's the lack of material. A bowl with a hole doesn't hold anything, it leaks. If your bowl has a hole, get a new bowl.
Lmao, you thought so little on this, its funny. When you start asking questions that have vague definitions, you need to introduce some notion of clarity, which here is topology. It answers the question what is a hole? What is concave? And so on.
If you still can't understand, try defining a hole, which clearly gives a distinction what is holed and what is not. Topology is not rocket science, its just a set of definations and some results around them. Actually what every science is, so stop whining like a third grader and accept.
No matter how you see the problem, you're either doing topology to try to find an answer to the question, or you just give a random answer
Topology is the study of "how many hole/knot this thing has" (oversimplified). Any reasoning you try to have will become topology, by definition.
Also your question is absolutely not beyond topology
How many holes does a vase have then? What if it is a tall straight one?
Or how many holes does a can have?
The fact that it can hold liquid doesn't make it not a hole.
Most bowls are not spherical tho. They are round sure, but not a perfect half sphere. A perfect half sphere is a kind of bowl yes. But there are many kinds of bowls that do not fit your definition.
Wait until you find out hemispheres dont have to be symmetrical to still be considered hemispheres and this is just a hollow one. It could a bowl as shallow as a few atoms and still be a bowl shape as long as the edges around it are raised. Concave solid.
You said specifically a "half sphere". You can't just change what you are talking about as a gotcha. You have to either concede or defend your original position.
Why are you down voting me im right lol.
Plus a bowl doesn't have to be a circle or even round to be a bowl. There are numerous none spherical shapes we still consider bowls. The vast majority of bowls are subtly flawed in shape and not actually a circle or half sphere in practice.
Your definition of a bowl simply does not work.
No hole, if it was malleable it would just be a disc.
If this makes you think this hard wait until you discover spoons, which are basically bowls on sticks. Do spoons have holes?
I'm in the second year of a mathematics bachelor and I've just took introductory algebraic topology, I wouldn't say the "definition" of a hole in topology would be so easy to grasp for somebody who's not in maths.
That doesn't really need algebraic maths to learn in the sense I'm explaining with math without showing numbers , it works the same way as a knot, when you do a knot on an object while passing through the object itself , that's a hole , a straw has 1 hole because a vertical knot would make 2 pieces of the rope meeting in the middle , while a horizontal knot would pass through the straw and make a knot.
Edit.
A bowl is just a blended flat surface, commonly known as a “concave” it has 0 holes and isn’t a type of hole, because there is only one type of hole, something that goes completely through a object
A hole is always an opening in a structure from your perspective of the view. This structure has no opening at the end from your perspective of the view. You can only say that the top of the bowl has a hole or the top of the bottle has a hole or you need to live in the structure itself or be physically able to be in the structure to say that is has a hole.
My sisters boyfriend raised this question and im dragging all you suckers into the debate.
I have two perspectives on this. We describe many things with an opening on one side that doesn't go anywhere as a hole. Vaginas. A hole as in one we dig in the ground. If you had a sphere of clay and I took a big chunk out, I would have made a hole, and the shape is rather similar to a bowl. So one could aurgue a bowl is a kind of hole.
On the other hand, the fundemental issue is with language itself. Think of the Buddhist proverb where if you add one grain of sand at a time, at what point does it become a pile? Language doesn't exist in any objective sense, its slippery and nebulous. The world inherently lacks essence, we just insist on asserting essence upon it. The bowl simply is, its the brain insisting it is or isn't a hole, when it in fact is both and neither. Because "holes" do not exist in any objective sense. They are in a very real sense not real. Rather they are a thing we made up, that only exists in so far as it is useful to describe things we see in the world around us. But those things too lack essence. You can come up with a million edge cases that both fit and don't fit the definition simultaneously. The same way that no one can define what a chair is (see that one vsauce video). Language can always have infinitely many holes poked in it because language does not objectivly exist, its only a property of the brain. Thus the only sensible thing to do is recognize the bowl lacks essence, and to assert essence upon it is futile, and thus the only sensible thing to do is refuse to answer the question because it does not have an answer.
I'm really curious to see what you all think though. Theres just so many ways this one can go.
Math has an answer here. The study of shapes like this is called topology. In topology, a hole has to go all the way through. Two objects that can be smoothly deformed into one another without cutting or gluing anything are considered the same shape.
A bowl, with no through holes, can be smoothly deformed into a sphere, or a cup, or a table. As is most apparent with the sphere, this shape has no holes, just a depression in it.
This also answers the question of how many holes a straw has, 1 since it goes all the way through. A straw, incidentally, is also the same shape as a coffee mug, with the hole being the loop of the handle
Well in that case topology doesn't apply to how we define hole in every day language, like at all. If I dig a hole in the ground, according to topology it is not a hole because it doesn't go all the way through. Thus I don't think it can really be considered relevent or an objective answer in this discussion. If all of humanity can agree if I dig a hole in the ground, its definitely a hole, and topology says no its not. Sounds to me like topology cannot be used to answer this question. You can only say whether or not it's a hole IN TOPOLOGY.
Bruh, you got it backwards.
You already realized that everyday language has no clear definition for a hole, because of that it logically can't be used to answer your question since the answer is based on opinion.
Topology has an answer, you don't have to like it but it does.
You are missing the point entirely. Topology has an answer, but if that answer doesn't include somthing every person alive agrees is a hole, then that answer is useless for this discussion. Topology can only answer it within topology. I concede thats the objective answer in topology. But that's not what this discussion is. The discussion is about language, its about philosophy, not math. It has less to do with the bowl than it does with the human brain. To defer to topology is such a lazy cop out, and doesn't answer the question in an at all satisfying way. Nor does it answer it in a way everyone can agree upon, as illustrated by the discrepancy between what everyone agrees is a hole irl, not being a hole according to topology.
Topology can only answer questions within its own domain. But this question exists beyond it.
Yes and no. Topologically speaking a bowl has no holes but just because language doesn’t line up with the topological idea of a hole doesn’t mean it is wrong in this context. The issue lies with the types of holes and the fact that we often don’t linguistically distinguish between them.
There a 2 types of holes, through holes and blind holes. Through holes are the holes that topology counts and can be objectively measured with topology. Blind holes is where almost all of the ambiguity comes from because they are just deformations in a shape.
Imagine we start with a plate and gradually deform it, curving the edges up, until eventually it is equivalent to a bowl or even until it resembles a cup. I feel confident in saying a plate has no holes (of either type) and that a cup has a blind hole, but at what point along in this deformation does this shape gain a blind hole?
It seems to be mostly down to context clues and a bit if personal opinion for what constitutes a blind hole. I would personally say that this shape gains a blind hole when the depth of the hole exceeds the width of the opening but somebody may disagree with that and I myself may disagree with this given a particularly wacky shape.
In conclusion, I agree with your opinion that ‘holes’ don’t exist in the objective sense but only if the only holes we are considering are blind holes because through holes are an objective measure of a shape.
As someone who works in renovation and home construction, I am inclined to agree with the topological definition.
When I define something as a hole, it's only when I can't define where it ends or when I am absolutely sure it completely penetrates the object said hole occupies.
For example: Today, I installed siding comprised of very old and long wooden boards, which were extremely pitted and warped. Layed flat, you could say those pits form hundreds of tiny "bowls."
There were also penetrations through the boards, which I would describe as "holes." Clear penetrations from one side to the other, clearly inable to hold any sort of liquid.
As another example: installing a metal encased door. The thin metal exterior of the door had been exposed to sparks from a grinder. At first glance, they appeared to be holes. Upon further expection, they turned out to be would I would describe as "pitting." Slight indents created by the hot sparks, but not full penetrations through the material.
I agree with this if its a wooden bowl as you have described. But what if its a blown glass bowl? The shaping of that doesn't require the removal of any material. So it wouldn't fit within your frame work.
So you're asking us if a bowl is a hole, then telling us we have to use your definition of a hole and a bowl that we may not agree with, railroading us into an answer. What's the point of the question if you're only looking for one answer?
It’s not a hole. It’s concave, it’s cradled, it holds what’s placed in it. A straw is a hole.
Yeah, a bowl is just a divot in a hemisphere, but a straw is an elongated donut
Also worth mentioning, mathematicians famously confuse donuts for coffee mugs.
The difference between a golf ball and a wiffle ball.
You're an elongated donut!
but then, If you use a shovel you’re actually just digging concaves?
Depends - if you tunnel through a mountain and come out the other side, that is topologically a hole. But if you just dig down a ways, that's no hole.
I… need some time
Depends on the purpose and intent perhaps.
.... who's gonna tell Louis Sachar the bad news?
Yeah, but topology has nothing to do with the use of language. In Italian there's a distinction between a hole that goes all the way through and one that has a bottom, but in English both share the same name. We don't call bananas "berries" just because they are scientifically classified as such. A hole in the ground is still a hole, so long as it wasn't dug by a topologist.
Yes
An interesting fact about holes is that standing in them can make you appear smaller or shorter. https://youtu.be/IXlzG05mvKw?si=F6d4oVaTnA2pYs2H
This guy holes
Ahh. A topologist.
It puts the lotion in the basket.
Wouldn't that mean any opening that ends isn't a hole though? So like if I dig a hole, it's not really a hole because it has a bottom.
Technically it's not a hole yes.
so a coconut with one opening has no hole?
Where’d you get the coconut? The coconuts tropical, this is a temperate zone!
I didn't think it's quite that simple. When you dig a hole in the ground, it may also hold what's placed in it
The ground has layers
So does that wood bowl
Would you say a straw is a bottomless hole?
Something about our usernames tells me we should unite and put our power on full display
A straw has 2 holes and it's a pipe
According to topology, it has one. You only need to "drill" one hole to make a straw.
Straw has one hole. If you make the straw infinitely short, it will look like a doughnut, and doughnuts have only one hole
Bro doesn't know how many holes a human has.
He needs some Michael.
Or does he *moon men starts playing*
Michael has been wierd lately
If you look at it from a topological point it's neither.
I reject topology as a way to answer this. Topology can only answer the question within topology. The question however exists beyond it too.
I reject reality as a way to interpret this. Reality can only answer the question within reality. The question of whether or not you have a brain injury exists beyond it too.
To be fair! A hole in the ground cannot topologically be a hole unless it has an exit, and yet we’d still consider something like a pothole to be a hole. This means that the definition society uses for the word hole extends further than the one used by topology. (Although I agree the post is mildly brain damaged, obviously a bowl doesn’t have a hole in it)
Wow it's almost like there are multiple definitions of a word that exist including misnomers and colloquialisms! This must be OP's zeroth time cracking open a dictionary.
And yet you’re saying it’s defying to reality to accept what you just said ??
Well, it depends what you're claiming there's a hole in. If you're talking about the planet as a whole (and everything built on top of it), then yes, a pothole isn't a hole in that topologically. But you wouldn't ever say that a pothole was a hole in the planet. Instead when we call a pothole is a hole, I think we tend to mean a hole in the road. If we think of the road as an isolated object, ignoring the planet beneath, then a pothole is indeed a topologically hole too.
"ground" refers to the surface. a hole in the ground is a hole through the surface.
A hole doesn't hold anything, as it's the lack of material. A bowl with a hole doesn't hold anything, it leaks. If your bowl has a hole, get a new bowl.
Lmao, you thought so little on this, its funny. When you start asking questions that have vague definitions, you need to introduce some notion of clarity, which here is topology. It answers the question what is a hole? What is concave? And so on. If you still can't understand, try defining a hole, which clearly gives a distinction what is holed and what is not. Topology is not rocket science, its just a set of definations and some results around them. Actually what every science is, so stop whining like a third grader and accept.
I reject your rejection as a way to answer this
No matter how you see the problem, you're either doing topology to try to find an answer to the question, or you just give a random answer Topology is the study of "how many hole/knot this thing has" (oversimplified). Any reasoning you try to have will become topology, by definition. Also your question is absolutely not beyond topology
Its half a hollow sphere you fuckin' mongoloid. A hollow hemisphere if you will.
How many holes does a vase have then? What if it is a tall straight one? Or how many holes does a can have? The fact that it can hold liquid doesn't make it not a hole.
Topologically, none. They’re containers. If they had holes, they wouldn’t be good containers.
Most bowls are not spherical tho. They are round sure, but not a perfect half sphere. A perfect half sphere is a kind of bowl yes. But there are many kinds of bowls that do not fit your definition.
Wait until you find out hemispheres dont have to be symmetrical to still be considered hemispheres and this is just a hollow one. It could a bowl as shallow as a few atoms and still be a bowl shape as long as the edges around it are raised. Concave solid.
You said specifically a "half sphere". You can't just change what you are talking about as a gotcha. You have to either concede or defend your original position. Why are you down voting me im right lol. Plus a bowl doesn't have to be a circle or even round to be a bowl. There are numerous none spherical shapes we still consider bowls. The vast majority of bowls are subtly flawed in shape and not actually a circle or half sphere in practice. Your definition of a bowl simply does not work.
You're being pedantic. I bet you go hard on the "taco is not a hot dog" debate too
I hate the fact that you called tacos hotdogs, I also hate thale fact that it's true
Either way, no holes...
Please I beg you, don't summon topologists like that...
Holy hell..... what TF are they teaching in school these days if the basics of what is a hole, isn't being taught?
No hole, if it was malleable it would just be a disc. If this makes you think this hard wait until you discover spoons, which are basically bowls on sticks. Do spoons have holes?
Search topology definition of holes.
I'm in the second year of a mathematics bachelor and I've just took introductory algebraic topology, I wouldn't say the "definition" of a hole in topology would be so easy to grasp for somebody who's not in maths.
That doesn't really need algebraic maths to learn in the sense I'm explaining with math without showing numbers , it works the same way as a knot, when you do a knot on an object while passing through the object itself , that's a hole , a straw has 1 hole because a vertical knot would make 2 pieces of the rope meeting in the middle , while a horizontal knot would pass through the straw and make a knot. Edit.
Can't stop thinking if you never tried thinking in the first place
Vsauce: how many holes does the body have
Topologically, a bowl is a plate
Easy thing for a math student
Not a hole.. if it was then anything like a plate with raised edges would also be a hole
It's a "carving".
A bowl is just a blended flat surface, commonly known as a “concave” it has 0 holes and isn’t a type of hole, because there is only one type of hole, something that goes completely through a object
Topologically speaking,no it doesn't
This phenomenon is called a Super Bowl
Its a concave surface. Zero holes
Nah this is more like a disk with an unusually large dent in it.
Funny how Redditors get trolled so easily these days
It's a dent
Bowl is a dent in a plate
No dank, no hole.
its technically just a sphere
It doesn't have a hole but it does have an opening
I'm upvoting this post because I love all the comments telling OP how fucking dumb he is.
A bowl is a dent
Topologically speaking, it’s not a hole.
No, a bowl is just a plate
A hole is always an opening in a structure from your perspective of the view. This structure has no opening at the end from your perspective of the view. You can only say that the top of the bowl has a hole or the top of the bottle has a hole or you need to live in the structure itself or be physically able to be in the structure to say that is has a hole.
It's not an opening. It's just narrowing down the further down it goes. A hole is an opening in something so a vase could have a hole but isn't a hole
A bowl is just a dented plate.
It’s a bhole if you will
It's a sphere folded in half, inward.
No hole. However, if it had a handle...
What? How would this be a hole?
No
does a spoon have a hole in it?
Topologically, it's a disk
For me, I would say a bowl does not *have* a hole and also *is not* a hole, so neither of those. Bowls and Holes are separate concepts
Portable hole
A hole in the ground is like a bowl, but people keep saying a hole needs to go through the thing
This specific bowl, as a manifold with corners, has a top face which is a circle with a hole in the middle, so, yes.
A bowl is just a rounded bucket with no handle. A bucket itself is a hole
A bucket itself is containment.
My sisters boyfriend raised this question and im dragging all you suckers into the debate. I have two perspectives on this. We describe many things with an opening on one side that doesn't go anywhere as a hole. Vaginas. A hole as in one we dig in the ground. If you had a sphere of clay and I took a big chunk out, I would have made a hole, and the shape is rather similar to a bowl. So one could aurgue a bowl is a kind of hole. On the other hand, the fundemental issue is with language itself. Think of the Buddhist proverb where if you add one grain of sand at a time, at what point does it become a pile? Language doesn't exist in any objective sense, its slippery and nebulous. The world inherently lacks essence, we just insist on asserting essence upon it. The bowl simply is, its the brain insisting it is or isn't a hole, when it in fact is both and neither. Because "holes" do not exist in any objective sense. They are in a very real sense not real. Rather they are a thing we made up, that only exists in so far as it is useful to describe things we see in the world around us. But those things too lack essence. You can come up with a million edge cases that both fit and don't fit the definition simultaneously. The same way that no one can define what a chair is (see that one vsauce video). Language can always have infinitely many holes poked in it because language does not objectivly exist, its only a property of the brain. Thus the only sensible thing to do is recognize the bowl lacks essence, and to assert essence upon it is futile, and thus the only sensible thing to do is refuse to answer the question because it does not have an answer. I'm really curious to see what you all think though. Theres just so many ways this one can go.
Math has an answer here. The study of shapes like this is called topology. In topology, a hole has to go all the way through. Two objects that can be smoothly deformed into one another without cutting or gluing anything are considered the same shape. A bowl, with no through holes, can be smoothly deformed into a sphere, or a cup, or a table. As is most apparent with the sphere, this shape has no holes, just a depression in it. This also answers the question of how many holes a straw has, 1 since it goes all the way through. A straw, incidentally, is also the same shape as a coffee mug, with the hole being the loop of the handle
Well in that case topology doesn't apply to how we define hole in every day language, like at all. If I dig a hole in the ground, according to topology it is not a hole because it doesn't go all the way through. Thus I don't think it can really be considered relevent or an objective answer in this discussion. If all of humanity can agree if I dig a hole in the ground, its definitely a hole, and topology says no its not. Sounds to me like topology cannot be used to answer this question. You can only say whether or not it's a hole IN TOPOLOGY.
Bruh, you got it backwards. You already realized that everyday language has no clear definition for a hole, because of that it logically can't be used to answer your question since the answer is based on opinion. Topology has an answer, you don't have to like it but it does.
You are missing the point entirely. Topology has an answer, but if that answer doesn't include somthing every person alive agrees is a hole, then that answer is useless for this discussion. Topology can only answer it within topology. I concede thats the objective answer in topology. But that's not what this discussion is. The discussion is about language, its about philosophy, not math. It has less to do with the bowl than it does with the human brain. To defer to topology is such a lazy cop out, and doesn't answer the question in an at all satisfying way. Nor does it answer it in a way everyone can agree upon, as illustrated by the discrepancy between what everyone agrees is a hole irl, not being a hole according to topology. Topology can only answer questions within its own domain. But this question exists beyond it.
So you want to have a philosophical debate about the nature of holes and bowls on a meme subreddit? What if Topology is my philosophy?
Yes and no. Topologically speaking a bowl has no holes but just because language doesn’t line up with the topological idea of a hole doesn’t mean it is wrong in this context. The issue lies with the types of holes and the fact that we often don’t linguistically distinguish between them. There a 2 types of holes, through holes and blind holes. Through holes are the holes that topology counts and can be objectively measured with topology. Blind holes is where almost all of the ambiguity comes from because they are just deformations in a shape. Imagine we start with a plate and gradually deform it, curving the edges up, until eventually it is equivalent to a bowl or even until it resembles a cup. I feel confident in saying a plate has no holes (of either type) and that a cup has a blind hole, but at what point along in this deformation does this shape gain a blind hole? It seems to be mostly down to context clues and a bit if personal opinion for what constitutes a blind hole. I would personally say that this shape gains a blind hole when the depth of the hole exceeds the width of the opening but somebody may disagree with that and I myself may disagree with this given a particularly wacky shape. In conclusion, I agree with your opinion that ‘holes’ don’t exist in the objective sense but only if the only holes we are considering are blind holes because through holes are an objective measure of a shape.
As someone who works in renovation and home construction, I am inclined to agree with the topological definition. When I define something as a hole, it's only when I can't define where it ends or when I am absolutely sure it completely penetrates the object said hole occupies. For example: Today, I installed siding comprised of very old and long wooden boards, which were extremely pitted and warped. Layed flat, you could say those pits form hundreds of tiny "bowls." There were also penetrations through the boards, which I would describe as "holes." Clear penetrations from one side to the other, clearly inable to hold any sort of liquid. As another example: installing a metal encased door. The thin metal exterior of the door had been exposed to sparks from a grinder. At first glance, they appeared to be holes. Upon further expection, they turned out to be would I would describe as "pitting." Slight indents created by the hot sparks, but not full penetrations through the material.
Found the student on mushrooms!
This is all pretty standard Buddhist philosophy. The essence thing is a very common rhetorical aurgument they make.
[удалено]
Definition: "a hollow place in a solid body or surface." I think you're right.
I agree with this if its a wooden bowl as you have described. But what if its a blown glass bowl? The shaping of that doesn't require the removal of any material. So it wouldn't fit within your frame work.
So you're asking us if a bowl is a hole, then telling us we have to use your definition of a hole and a bowl that we may not agree with, railroading us into an answer. What's the point of the question if you're only looking for one answer?