Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 (MC830713); site klipper.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!hao!seismo!mcvax!vu44!botter!klipper!biep
From: biep@klipper.UUCP (J. A. "Biep" Durieux)
Newsgroups: net.math
Subject: Re: strange shapes
Message-ID: <399@klipper.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 2-Jan-85 11:51:04 EST
Article-I.D.: klipper.399
Posted: Wed Jan  2 11:51:04 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 4-Jan-85 04:45:17 EST
References: <189@faron.UUCP> <18271@lanl.ARPA> <734@gloria.UUCP>
Reply-To: biep@klipper.UUCP (Barter's Investment and Executive Program)
Organization: VU Informatica, Amsterdam
Lines: 23

>> Actually, I don't think there is a finite surface that 'encloses' infinite
>> volume.  And I think that a sphere probably does enclose the maximal
>> volume for a given area.  But there have been no proofs yet.

In article <734@gloria.UUCP> colonel@gloria.UUCP (George Sicherman) writes:
>A finite surface that encloses an infinite volume?  How about a Klein Bottle?
>If you insist on an orientable surface, see Kellogg on Potential Theory.  His
>proof of Gauss's theorem will give you some ideas about what restrictions
>are necessary.
>						Col. G. L. Sicherman

[]
	What was wrong with the idea of a sphere with negative orientation,
so as to enclose the whole "outer world", only leaving the "inside" (actually
it's outside now!) unenclosed?
-- 

							  Biep.
	{seismo|decvax|philabs}!mcvax!vu44!botter!klipper!biep

I utterly disagree with  everything  you are saying,  but I 
am prepared to fight to the death for your right to say it.
							--Voltaire