A partial index of discussion notes is in
Suppose you grasp the two end bands firmly, one in each hand: there will then be many movements you can perform without letting go: shaking the bands, stretching them (i.e. pulling the ends further apart) twisting them, looping the chain over a door handle and pulling, winding them round a candlestick, etc. Is there any action you can perform while holding the two ends that will cause the rubber bands to come apart without breaking or being cut? If not, why not?
The bands have been joined in such a way that each band except the left-hand end band has an asymmetric shape: at the right hand end there is a simple loop, while at the left hand end there are two loops, with the next band going through them.
To maintain the pattern of connections in the picture, you would have to add new bands to the two ends in different ways. Can you visualise what would be required to add a band? How would the processes have to be constrained if you wished to maintain the regular pattern of connections?
How might the chain look different if you added bands without maintaining the regular pattern? Would it be possible to produce alternating bands?
What shapes can be formed by connecting a new band to a non-end band in the chain? E.g. could you form a "K" shape instead of a linear shape? Could the bands be linked to form a branching tree shape, with three branches added at every node?
Is it possible to join the two end bands of the chain in the same way as the pairs of adjacent bands are joined, i.e. by pushing a loop in one end band through the other end band then pulling the rest of the band through its loop? This would close up the chain of bands to form a large loop.
If it cannot be done, then why not?
To mathematicians: Is this a known theorem in 3-D topology, or a special case of a known theorem? What sort of proof of impossibility of closing the loop would satisfy a mathematician?
How can non-mathematicians find it obvious that closing the loop is impossible
(perhaps after a little thought). I have asked a few, who did not take long to
decide it was impossible, though they did not find it easy to say why not?
Why is it hard to explain why not?
Added 13 Jun 2017
What is the role of the assumption that no part of a rubber band can pass through another part of a rubber band?
Why is it hard to explain why not?
Added 13 Jun 2017
Related question: what kind of visual mechanism, or reasoning mechanism, makes it possible to discover that IF the rubber bands are indefinitely stretchable (so that size and thickness differences do not produce obstacles) THEN:
(a) it is always possible to link an isolated pair of rubber bands using the procedure mentioned (producing a two-link chain)?I am assuming that anyone who reads and understands (c) will agree that the process is impossible, but most non-mathematicians (and some mathematicians) will find it difficult to explain why. If I am wrong and it is possible, please let me know how. If possible please provide a video of the process, or a sequence of snap-shots.
(b) it is always possible to extend such a chain by linking a new isolated rubber band to an end band?
(c) it is never possible to transform such a (linear) chain into a looped chain by pushing a loop in one end band through the other end band then pulling the rest of the first band through its loop?
Impossible process vs impossible structure
NB I am not saying that it is impossible for a complete circular chain of rubber bands to exist: merely that it is impossible to produce one from a collection of existing rubber bands without introducing a temporary discontinuity in any of the bands.
If the final band is somehow "grown" in place, or a band is cut, looped as required, and then the cut fused so that the join is invisible, then, the result could be a complete circular chain of linked rubber bands. So it's not a type of object that's claimed here to be impossible, but a type of process.
Can any currently existing automated theorem prover cope?
Is there any automated theorem prover that can make the sort of discovery described above and prove the impossibility? I assume all the deep-learning technology is irrelevant, since it does not yield knowledge about what's impossible, or necessarily the case, or mathematical implications.
Many aspects of Euclidean geometry are concerned not with static structures (despite the frequent use of static diagrams) but with invariant features of processes that produce or modify structures. For example, invariant aspects of areas, or changes of areas, of triangles as the triangular shape (and/or position, orientation, or size) vary are summed up in theorems about areas of planar triangles as illustrated here:
Hidden Depths of Triangle Qualia (Especially their areas.)A separate file The Triangle Sum Theorem discusses ways of demonstrating that changing the size or shape of a planar triangle will not alter the sum of the interior angles.
Old and new proofs concerning the sum of interior angles of a triangle.
(More on the hidden depths of triangle qualia.)
I suspect biological evolution produced mechanisms for (proto-mathematical?) reasoning about deformable structures that are not exactly planar, do not involve infinitely thin or infinitely long, or perfectly straight lines, long before the development of Euclidean geometry.
However, not all the organisms that can use such mathematical reasoning are
aware that they are doing so and can discuss their reasoning with others. That
includes pre-verbal human toddlers, as illustrated in
Meta-Morphogenesis and Toddler Theorems: Case Studies
I think this is all connected with what James Gibson famously referred to as perception of "affordances" (including opportunities and obstacles for possible actions), though I don't know whether he ever noticed the connection with ancient mathematical discoveries.
J. J. Gibson,
The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception,
Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA, 1979,
It took me a couple of weeks to notice this.
This document one of many presenting examples of perception of possibilities and impossibilities (involving geometry, topology, and numbers) on this web site. Here are some more of them (including those already mentioned above):
Another challenge for automated reasoning systems -- discover/invent a 3-D
ontology in order to explain/understand sensed 2-D phenomena:
This is part of the Turing-inspired Meta-Morphogenesis project: