I Flat surface to curved surface

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter anilswipe
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around converting a flat piece of paper into a perfect sphere and the mathematical implications of this transformation. The original question seeks to determine the difference in surface area between the paper and the resulting sphere, questioning if a general formula exists for this calculation. Participants clarify that while a perfect sphere cannot be created from a flat surface without overlaps, one could theoretically approximate it by cutting the paper into smaller pieces. The conversation also touches on the Banach-Tarski paradox, highlighting the complexities of measuring areas and volumes in different dimensions. Ultimately, the challenge lies in the mathematical definition of the transformation and the preservation of area during the process.
anilswipe
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hello everybody,

Suppose I take a paper of say surface area A.

Then I would somehow (Do what it takes to do it; cut, fold whatever but no overlapping.) make an ideally and theoretically, biggest possible, perfect sphere out of it. Let's say the surface area of this sphere is A'.

Now how much is the difference between the surface area of the two?

Is there a general formula to find this?

In lay man's terms:
Suppose I take a plane paper and convert it into a sphere without overlapping, how much paper will be leftover? What is the generalized mathematical formula, if there is one, to find the difference between the surface areas of the two?

Thank you.

PS: Though I have chosen the suffix 'Intermediate', (assuming, possibly wrongly, that there may not be High school grade answers to this) I would gladly invite Basic High school grade answers if possible, to keep things simpler and I would invite higher grade answers, if absolutely necessary.
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
You can't make a sphere from a flat piece of paper. For the same reason you can't flatten out a spherical surface.

That said, if you cut the paper up into small very pieces and stuck them all together, you could get an approximate sphere of the same total area.
 
PeroK said:
That said, if you cut the paper up into small very pieces and stuck them all together, you could get an approximate sphere of the same total area.
I get it, but I suppose , that is not what I want to do and which also means that I have not been able to put my thought across. I apologize for that and would edit the post to that effect. Thanks for the reply.
 
OK. One more step into the topic.

Assuming the spere is perfect and made of 100 % of the original piece paper. It will have its radium, and its calculated surface area. On the other hand, the paper has its area before being turned into a sphere.

Will the calculated spheric area equal to the original area of the plane paper?
 
Gang said:
OK. One more step into the topic.

Assuming the spere is perfect and made of 100 % of the original piece paper. It will have its radium, and its calculated surface area. On the other hand, the paper has its area before being turned into a sphere.

Will the calculated spheric area equal to the original area of the plane paper?
Are you trying to ask whether something like the Banach-Tarski paradox might apply?

In the Banach-Tarski paradox, one shreds a solid (3 dimensional) sphere into a finite collection of subsets and the re-assembles the subsets into two spheres, each equal in volume to the original.

Importantly, the subsets are sufficiently "weird" so that they are not Lebesgue-measurable. So one cannot argue that the measure of the union is necessarily equal to the sum of the measures.

Obviously we are talking about two dimensions here and Banach-Tarski works in three. And we have the niggling problem that we have flat sets that we are trying to plop onto a spherical surface. So the problem is not even well defined to start with. (How can you require an area-preserving flat to spherical mapping function without having a shape with a measurable area).
 
Last edited:
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top