All ships actually are already in all Klein bottles.
by a very specific definition of “inside”
The specifics were already covered by the term “Klein bottle”. Everything is inside all Klein bottles. You, me, and the universe.
All currently existing Klein bottles.
It seems obvious but I feel like specifying is necessary when talking about abstract things like 4d shapes.
Klein bottles have no inside, so no. Either that or everything is in every Klein bottle.
Either that or everything is in every Klein bottle.
That would still be a no because no ship can be put in a Klein bottle if every ship is already in the Klein bottle.
the ship would be put in the kline bottle upon the kline bottle’s creation
All Klein bottles are inside all Klein bottles.
I don’t think that’s quite a valid statement. You could create a klein bottle that has an object locked into the void area. By the colloquial definition of “inside”, the ship would be contained inside the bottle
I feel like Klein bottles are famously the exception to colloquial notions of “inside.” Do Möbius strips have two sides because colloquially nothing has only one side?
Mobius strips actually have two sides. The face and the edge. Both wrap around twice.
yesn’t
for those who don’t know what this is, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klein_bottle and
I’d ask the inverse. What definition of “inside” can you apply to a traditional bottle–so as to say that a ship is inside the bottle–that could not also be applied to a Klein bottle? Both of them have a single opening that leads to an enclosed, dead-ended volume.
A Klein bottle may only have one surface, and therefore you can argue it has no topological inside. But a traditional bottle is topologically equivalent to a flat disc, so the same logic would say you can’t put a ship inside one of those either.
Once you put a cork in the neck of the bottle, it is no longer a disc and can contain other objects.
True, but can’t you cork a Klein bottle just as easily?
No, you would have to make the bottle around the ship.
Ask Randall Monroe.
This actually is a stupid question
Well, that’s the whole idea of this community, isn’t it?
If a question is structured such that it’s unanswerable you’ve got a stupid question on your hands.
Everybody knows that “no stupid questions” means you’re not supposed to be embarrassed by asking something you don’t know.
But when you show up asking a specifically unanswerable question, you’re just a troll. Yes a harmless troll but it’s just trolling; it’s just time wasting.
No. It says it right in the name. No Stupid Questions /s
Well, there’s also this:
Can You Fill a Shape That Has No Inside? - The Action Lab
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdHd8yWyysE&ab_channel=TheActionLab
Yes
No but you could project one onto its surface
