Why hairy balls can't be combed to lie perfectly flat and what that has to do with wind currents on planet Earth. Surprisingly, this is all totally safe for work.

Via New Scientist and hectocotyli

*Maggie Koerth-Baker is the science editor at BoingBoing.net. She writes a monthly column for The New York Times Magazine and is the author of Before the Lights Go Out, a book about electricity, infrastructure, and the future of energy. You can find Maggie on Twitter and Facebook.*

*Maggie goes places and talks to people. Find out where she'll be speaking next.*

MORE: immaturity • math • physics • Science

This explains some of the problems I have with my cat. BTW, how big is this guaranteed area of no wind on the earth?

A single point minimum, but there may be more.

However, the guarantee is of no HORIZONTAL wind; there could still be an updraft or a downdraft. And one could argue that the movement of wind on the real world is not particularly well modeled by a continuous vector field in the first place; ultimately, the atmosphere is highly discontinuous, being made of various teeny molecules with big gaps of vacuum between them.

One could argue that, but it seems over-precise for this application. Granted that gases are discontinuous, it only matters for applications where that actually affects their behaviour. If you’re modelling diffusion, sure. If you’re modelling wind, a vector field still works pretty well.

Technically according to the theorem, the guaranteed area isn’t an area at all, it’s a point… in theory it could be infinitesimally small. (Although in practice in this example, it needn’t be.)

One of the joys of pure maths is that once you’ve proven something

exists, you mostly stop worrying about it.Yeah but… your cat is actually the donut.

boom.

Cat butts and hairy balls. Happy Monday, bOINGbOING!

That’s why I shave.

… I’m really sorry, but someone had to.

Look at that hairy banana.

Don’t comb it. Just look at it.

Technically, the theorem doesn’t apply to bananas, just spheres. But bananas are topologically equivalent, I suppose.

Yes, that’s described in the video. Balls are the same as banana-shaped objects, which are the same as rabbit-shaped objects. Unless you count the hole in the rabbit, in which case a rabbit is a donut, not a ball.

i don’t like the “it’s math. so don’t bother questioning it” assertion. but still, it’s a very nice (unnecessarily terse) explanation.

But that’s not what he said.

He said don’t go wasting your time

playing around with a hairy balltrying to prove the theorem wrong, because the ‘Hairy Ball Theorem’ is math (i.e., it’s not a prediction of the physical behavior of actual hairy balls, it’s about vector fields in algebraic topology) – and it’s a theorem that’s already been proven.So nothing you observe while playing around with an actual hairy ball is going to disprove it.

So you’d be wasting your time doing that. :-)

It’s a sad state of affairs for me when I can’t think of a joke to make about this post.

I was going to add ‘in my defence I am drunk’… but that makes my predicament even more shameful.

This may be the only time I’ve ever wished I had a hairy ball to play with.

“Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although-” Shut the fuck up Stephen Hawkins and come my hairy balls!

Hairy balls need combing?

Other fun consequences of Brouwer’s Fixed Point Theorem and its related theorems:

Somewhere on the equator there are two antipodal points with exactly the same temperature. (Or barometric pressure, if you’d rather stick with air movement.)

Take two identical pieces of paper. Crumple one up and put it on the other. There is at least one point on the crumpled piece that is directly over the corresponding point on the flat one.

(You’d have to use transparent film with a numbered grid, or something, to see this for yourself.)

(Alternatively, take a map that includes your current location and drop it on the floor. At least one point on the map is directly over the point it represents.)

Edit edit: Nevermind, I was just being opinionated.

I really think these examples “naturally” illustrate other theorems.

Edit: (so as not to be obscure) i.e. I feel the first follows most naturally from Borsuk-Ulam or IMVT depending how you state it, and the second from Banach CMT. If you consider the map and use Brouwer, it’s really not as nice a result (no unique fixed point, no construction, …).

Everything you say is true – That’s why I said “and related theorems”.

The first is, obviously, Borsuk-Ulam. The second you can get at quite a few ways, but I agree that your approach is much more natural.

But seeing as we’re on BB not math.stackexchange, I felt like throwing in a few extra examples while we’re on this topic. They’re related. Fixed point theorems are just cool in general.

Full appreciation of the coolness of fixed point theorems may require several years study of analysis and topology.

And just look at that hairy banana. Just look at it.

Just make sure your v-field isn’t Lipschitz! Cause that would be gross.

Join us tomorrow when we discuss the Dat Ass Theorum, which deals with spherical curvatures and friction coefficients.

It would be even funnier if Pete Schweddy had proven this theorem…

It certainly took a while for this to start rolling downhill, but finally, here we go. Yay!

Male Pattern Baldness for the win!

I remember my high school geometry teacher mentioning this back in the dark ages. Although, I always remember him calling it the “hairy ape” theorem. (Maybe he just thought hairy balls were a little to giggle-provoking for his 10th grade audience.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4UGZEjG02s

Original source, better quality, no ads.