Talk:2658: Coffee Cup Holes

I was confused for a moment. That's a coffee mug. And the correct answer is either one (the handle) or none (because below the macroscopic level (and above the theoretical sub-Planck scale of string-theory loops) it's increasingly not even mostly holes but very, very barely anything 'solid' jostling about in empty space giving no real impediment to any theoretical quantum-scale cheesewire without even being cut through). A coffee cup has no holes (regardless) if you don't count any form of sippy-lid it might have. 172.70.85.13 22:25, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Actually, the mug has two at the macro level (the hole that makes up the handle and the hole on the top). There could conceivably be more shallow holes inside the mug where the handle connects to the cup. At a plank-length level, the atoms could be viewed as holes in the vacuum bending space time around it.

You're not a topologist, certainly. And a hydrogen-nucleus is approximately 10^20 times the planck-length. The whole atom on the order of 10,000 times larger, and the constiuent quarks 'only' 1,000th, or so, smaller, with the differences being the space betweenn that anything that cares isn't going to consider much of an obstruction. 172.70.162.155 23:43, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

There is no "hole" at the top - at best it count as an indention in the surface 172.70.211.134 (talk) 23:38, 12 August 2022 (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

Hole has multiple meanings. A hole in the ground doesn't have to go all the way through the Earth. The point of panel three is that we don't know what definition the question is using, which makes it impossible to answer correctly.Zzyzx (talk) 00:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Do coffee “cups” not have handles wherever you are? Google image search shows white ceramic cups with rounded bottoms, wider than they are high, with round handles that a finger or two can pass through, on saucers; and that is indeed what I think of when I hear “coffee cup”. Wikipedia shows similar examples in other colours and materials. In my understanding, it is entirely equivalent to a mug-with-a-handle topologically and has the same one hole. Oh, are you perhaps thinking of those cardboard cups you get from vending machines and cheap coffee shops? I wouldn’t call them “coffee cups” at all; just “paper cups”. Chortos-2 (talk) 13:01, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

For my part, "wider than tall and rounded (or even very tapered)" is a cup (it cups the liquid), hence "teacup", and they mostly do have handles, whilst the shape held in the comic is a mug for being more a height-dominant cylinder (or close to it). Topologically the same, but distinct in fully-fleshed form (at least for those of either not morphologically distorted towards the other, a tall cup or a wide mug, say).

A "paper cup that coffee comes in" (or a similar re-usable "cup-for-life") that does not have a handle is, however, always a cup even if it's taller than wide, for reasons clearly more descriptivist than prescriptivist in origin. There are no "paper mugs", that I'm aware of; I know you have plastic cup-holding things that give you a (re-usable) handle to hold the thing that the cup sits in so that you don't have to grip a thin, fragile and very heated disposable/vendable cup skin-on-'skin', but that's a holder for a cup and it's still a cup that it holds.

I have no compunction in calling the comic's container a mug, based entirely upon its appearance, though obviously applying my own cultural/learnt distinctions to this. YMMV. 172.69.79.171 19:08, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

In my experience, it's almost never possible to get even a single finger through the handle on one of those cups. So from a finger perspective they have no holes. 172.70.90.223 10:19, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Where it does have a hole (rather than be a solid blade with a thick rim for ripping purposes) the intention is clearly to have the skin-on-skin between finger and thumb as a part of the grip-enhancement. As the hand is (ignoring blood vessels in its interior) not topologically a loop yet is touching then that qualifies the loop of plastic (however unnavigable by any whole digit) as a hole through which such contact can be made. Much more so than the fuss with what loops there are in an Alexander horned sphere, certainly.

Contact between components may also count, especially as the typical 'basket' form of such a cup-holder (definite holes) is now part of the cup-assemblage unit leaving no (or even more insignificant) gaps where those holes were in the holder-alone. In which case you would indeed consider the pinched digits to be looped (finger/thumb/inter-digit-'webbing' forming the hole) and then the handle that they loop through to form a must in turn be a loop to go though the interossic(?)-hole that has a hole. Which may then topologically create a two-domain composite topology (both parts of which are genus-1-ish toroidality) for which I can't currently imagine the terminology. But it'd be interesting to look at the Borromean Rings object and work out what professional topologists think about that (three loops, none of which are individually linked to any of the other two, but they are inseperable from both of the other two). ...sorry, just idly musing about that, not sure it's entirely relevent to the coffee-mugs/etc here. ;) 172.70.85.13 12:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Randall uses Coffe Cup and those type of cups are shown on wikipedia for coffee cups, so we should use coffee cup in the explanation and I have corrected this and just mentions that it is a coffee cup of the Mug type. --Kynde (talk) 10:50, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

[1] 172.70.179.4 23:54, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

For something to be a hole, you need to consider what is capable of passing through the hole. For instance, a mesh screen might have no holes that my fingers can pass through, but it is full of holes for water or air to pass through. And while atoms might be mostly space, other atoms can't usually just pass through that space, although high-energy particles may. Also, the space can be considered filled with forces, which may act as barriers to certain things. 172.70.130.171 00:36, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Sure, for one definition of “hole.” That’s the whole point of the comic: there are multiple definitions, and no single definition is correct. Szeth Pancakes (talk) 01:01, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Is “cup” or “mug” better for the explanation? “Mug” is a better descriptor, but it’s described as “cup” in the comic, so that would be more faithful to what Randall intended. Szeth Pancakes (talk) 01:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Coffee Cup in the explanation with mention of Mug. I have done that --Kynde (talk) 10:50, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Linguist: Zero to Two... mostly. Given linguistic variation and local functional style the object being referred to may not have a closed handle, or any handle at all (Cup vs Mug), and the top may be considered a hole in the common usage. --- 172.69.71.34 01:33, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

You've left out the deep dark hole of despair at your existence that's reflected back at you if it's your first coffee of the day. 172.70.90.223 10:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Part of the joke is that all five methods don't discern between a cup and a mug, the original cliché being that topologists are unusual because they don't. 172.70.211.134 03:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

All methods dicern and topologist especially notices the difference so this sentence makes no sense --Kynde (talk) 10:50, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Someone should mention that part of the joke is that when the topologist says it has one hole, they're referring to the hole in the handle, while in the next panel the "normal person" assumes the one hole they mentioned is the opening and questions its validity. 108.162.241.51 03:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Has been done --Kynde (talk) 10:50, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

All frames except the first and last depict a mug; a topologist most definitely discerns between a a cup and a mug because they give different answers, the "normal" person is only questioning a specific feature, and the philosopher is clearly considering a mug. If it's part of the joke the only contrast is the question. Seems way too subtle for Mr Munroes normal style. probably just what he is used to calling it. 172.69.69.208 07:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes it is a coffee cup of the Mug type. A shame he drew it like this because the mug/cup discussion has nothing with the comic to do at all. --Kynde (talk) 10:50, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

We have a lot of visual aids for topology in this comic, and none for the article about 2625: Field Topology. That seems backwards to me.172.69.22.39 22:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

That's a good point. Please find photos of the various sports fields and edit them to overlay brightly colored and contrastive lines showing where their holes are, link to them on the admin noticeboard, and I'm sure someone will upload and add them. I think they turned off uploads by IPs and new users to discourage troll vandals. 172.69.22.119 01:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

In the physicist paragraph, I put an Actual Citation Needed tag after "factorial of the number of particles in the universe" because, while I see what is being got at, with string theory of force mediation e.g. photons (and gravitons? or Higgs bosons?) it would be really nice to have a reference for that topic. 162.158.166.125 01:37, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Gotchu fam [2] 172.69.134.17 18:19, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

In LQG, at each instant of time, geometry is concentrated on one dimensional structures, called graphs, which can be arbitrarily complicated. But I don't think this implies uncountable holes?

Look, I know you're all having a super-important topology discussion or whatever you call it, but did you know today is Star Trek day on 2636: What If? 2 Countdown? 172.69.22.71 18:27, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

The philosopher may be referencing the following thought experiment: If you add a hole to a balloon, the result is equivalent to a flat disk that has 0 holes. Therefore, a balloon has -1 holes. (See this Stand Up Maths video for instance.) 172.69.22.145 18:51, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Dear topologists, which interior is the inside of a balloon? Relative interior or one of its see-alsos, or something else? 172.69.33.199 21:46, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

IDK - but I do not think so. It is just Randall's way of showing us that on our scale a coffee cup with a handle has exactly one hole. I'm sure he is on the topologist side, but think it is a stupid question to ask regular people. --Kynde (talk) 10:50, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the philosopher explanation is a bit misleading? "Now" refers to the hypothetical scenario in which there is an extra hole. Natural language philosophy is often (always?) ambiguous, but philosophers generally accept that some interpretations are misreadings and apply the principle of charity. They are not known for "gotcha" trick questions. Rather, Hairbun's question is an example of an "intuition pump", a hypothetical scenario intended to test the reader's intuitions with regard to the concept. So in this case, we might expect the reader to answer that there are now n+1 holes, where n = the number of holes before we made a new hole. You could poll people with this question to get data on the popular understanding of "hole" and "cup" as used in everyday language. Wordnerd (talk) 01:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Must have been changed since this comment was written... --Kynde (talk) 10:50, 15 August 2022 (UTC)