The essay appears to mix two different meanings of "hole".
Holes are a topological property of the slice of cheese. It's not scale invariant, as we're talking about holes on a human visible scale, not microscopic holes. The actual number is not fixed and may depend on the person doing the measuring.
I therefore don't see the need for "perforated", much less shape-predicates like "singly-perforated", "doubly-perforated" and "triply-perforated."
> For ‘hole’ read ‘bottle;’ for ‘hole-lining’ also read ‘bottle.’
Topologically speaking, a bottle doesn't have a hole, so this uses a different definition.
I think your definition still leaves the essence of the discussion in the same place: do topological properties "exist"? That's how I tend to blanket-interpret this debate; it's whether one is wiling to define existence to include things that aren't material.
This is a debate between grammarians, not logicians. Just because "hole" and "object" are both nouns doesn't mean they belong to the same logical category.
An old joke that I was thinking about recently: Two local government consultants - tasked with seeing if it'd be financially beneficial to dig a new tunnel so that cars don't have to drive up and down a mountain - dig two small holes on opposite sides of the mountain then stand at either end.
The punchline, which I can't remember, is something about the two holes being, according to the two consultants, an MVP of a tunnel: "Just stand at either end of it."
When the British government invited commercial proposals for the digging of the Channel Tunnel between England and France, one man submitted a bid for only £10,000. “How can you possibly dig under the English Channel for only £10,000?” asked the project manager.
“It’s simple,” replied the low bidder. “My partner takes a spade, goes to France and starts digging. I take another spade and start digging from England. We’ll both keep digging until we meet in the middle.”
“Hm, I see. But what happens if, through a miscalculation, you two do not meet?”
“That’s even better for you!” replied the bidder enthusiastically. “In that case you will have two tunnels!”
eesmith|3 months ago
Holes are a topological property of the slice of cheese. It's not scale invariant, as we're talking about holes on a human visible scale, not microscopic holes. The actual number is not fixed and may depend on the person doing the measuring.
I therefore don't see the need for "perforated", much less shape-predicates like "singly-perforated", "doubly-perforated" and "triply-perforated."
> For ‘hole’ read ‘bottle;’ for ‘hole-lining’ also read ‘bottle.’
Topologically speaking, a bottle doesn't have a hole, so this uses a different definition.
jasperry|3 months ago
CamperBob2|3 months ago
Joker_vD|3 months ago
gabriel666smith|3 months ago
The punchline, which I can't remember, is something about the two holes being, according to the two consultants, an MVP of a tunnel: "Just stand at either end of it."
quuxplusone|3 months ago
When the British government invited commercial proposals for the digging of the Channel Tunnel between England and France, one man submitted a bid for only £10,000. “How can you possibly dig under the English Channel for only £10,000?” asked the project manager.
“It’s simple,” replied the low bidder. “My partner takes a spade, goes to France and starts digging. I take another spade and start digging from England. We’ll both keep digging until we meet in the middle.”
“Hm, I see. But what happens if, through a miscalculation, you two do not meet?”
“That’s even better for you!” replied the bidder enthusiastically. “In that case you will have two tunnels!”
modin|3 months ago
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holes_(novel)
mcphage|3 months ago
jasperry|3 months ago