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