Page 1 of 1

### best excuse for being fat!

Posted: Fri Feb 13, 2009 2:37 am UTC
point to a slim guy and state that the two of you are topologically equivalent! one can be obtained from the other by stretching or shrinking, and you both contain the same number of holes!

### Re: best excuse for being fat!

Posted: Fri Feb 13, 2009 2:40 am UTC
mikau16 wrote:point to a slim guy and state that the two of you are topologically equivalent! one can be obtained from the other by stretching or shrinking, and you both contain the same number of holes!

It would be a better joke without the explanation at the end, IMO.

### Re: best excuse for being fat!

Posted: Fri Feb 13, 2009 2:47 am UTC
you may be right! :]

### Re: best excuse for being fat!

Posted: Fri Feb 13, 2009 3:15 am UTC
mikau16 wrote:you may be right! :]

I just gotta say I really like your attitude.

### Re: best excuse for being fat!

Posted: Fri Feb 13, 2009 9:42 am UTC
mikau16 wrote:point to a slim guy and state that the two of you are topologically equivalent!

What if the slim guy has more piercings than you?

### Re: best excuse for being fat!

Posted: Fri Feb 13, 2009 1:59 pm UTC
Then your reduced surface area makes you more heat efficient!

### Re: best excuse for being fat!

Posted: Fri Feb 13, 2009 4:18 pm UTC
You mean surface area to volume ratio. And the insulation probably doesn't hurt either

### Re: best excuse for being fat!

Posted: Fri Feb 13, 2009 5:21 pm UTC

it also makes it hard for you to be digested, by say,

a raptor?

(not really, they would chew you up. only holds true if you stay whole, like say, by a T-Rex. I just said raptor for shock value.)

### Re: best excuse for being fat!

Posted: Fri Feb 13, 2009 10:15 pm UTC
mikau16 wrote:point to a slim guy and state that the two of you are topologically equivalent! one can be obtained from the other by stretching or shrinking, and you both contain the same number of holes!

Two spaces cannot be homeomorphic if one has a larger cardinality. A fatter person has more fat cells than a skinnier one, and so the two cannot homeomorphic.

### Re: best excuse for being fat!

Posted: Fri Feb 13, 2009 11:38 pm UTC
Tac-Tics wrote:
mikau16 wrote:point to a slim guy and state that the two of you are topologically equivalent! one can be obtained from the other by stretching or shrinking, and you both contain the same number of holes!

Two spaces cannot be homeomorphic if one has a larger cardinality. A fatter person has more fat cells than a skinnier one, and so the two cannot homeomorphic.

Assume an ideal fat person.

### Re: best excuse for being fat!

Posted: Sat Feb 14, 2009 3:13 am UTC
Xanthir wrote:
Tac-Tics wrote:
mikau16 wrote:point to a slim guy and state that the two of you are topologically equivalent! one can be obtained from the other by stretching or shrinking, and you both contain the same number of holes!

Two spaces cannot be homeomorphic if one has a larger cardinality. A fatter person has more fat cells than a skinnier one, and so the two cannot homeomorphic.

Assume an ideal fat person.

Then we can optimize the math by treating him as a single point (assumes American (spherical) shape). BLACK HOLE!

### Re: best excuse for being fat!

Posted: Sat Feb 14, 2009 3:20 am UTC
No because his digestive tract goes all the way through, so he's more like a donut. It's not topologically the same as a sphere.

### Re: best excuse for being fat!

Posted: Sat Feb 14, 2009 4:14 am UTC
You might not be so fat if you'd just stop eating all those coffee mugs.

### Re: best excuse for being fat!

Posted: Sat Feb 14, 2009 4:47 am UTC
Tac-Tics wrote:
mikau16 wrote:point to a slim guy and state that the two of you are topologically equivalent! one can be obtained from the other by stretching or shrinking, and you both contain the same number of holes!

Two spaces cannot be homeomorphic if one has a larger cardinality. A fatter person has more fat cells than a skinnier one, and so the two cannot homeomorphic.

Depends on how you define person. If you define a human as the subset of R3 that they occupy (perhaps with some property associated with each point), then the two sets have the same cardinality, [imath]2^{\aleph_0}[/imath] (and presumably, the same topology). Your definition is somewhat more spurious though, since representing cells as isolated points is even weirder. Also, as it happens, you're factually wrong. Fat people don't have more fat cells than thin people, they have bigger fat cells.

Matterwave1 wrote:No because his digestive tract goes all the way through, so he's more like a donut. It's not topologically the same as a sphere.

I think that the sinus cavity provides some additional holes.

### Re: best excuse for being fat!

Posted: Sat Feb 14, 2009 9:24 am UTC
I would agree that a person has genus at least 3.

### Re: best excuse for being fat!

Posted: Sat Feb 14, 2009 11:09 am UTC
UserGoogol wrote: Fat people don't have more fat cells than thin people, they have bigger fat cells.

i'm pretty sure its possible to have both more fat cells and bigger fat cells. iirc putting on weight when you are young tends to increase the number of fat cells while when you are old tends to increase the size of each cell but i don't think it is a strict rule.

### Re: best excuse for being fat!

Posted: Sat Feb 14, 2009 10:10 pm UTC
*gazes with satisfaction upon what he has started*

### Re: best excuse for being fat!

Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 5:58 pm UTC
*gazes with even greater satisfaction upon what he has finished*