It's confusing to calculate Euler characteristic of this surface

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
2
down vote

favorite
2












This pic below is an exploded view of a cone.



enter image description here



I'm trying to calculate the Euler characteristic of the surface made from the fragment $M$, i.e.,



enter image description here



At first I thought the Euler characteristic is 0, but the one who made this question says it is actually 1.



And this is actually a part of an exercise to find the total geodesic curvature of $partial M$. I tried to figure it out using the Gauss-Bonnet theorem.




I'm sorry that the question is not clear.
$M$ is the region between top circle of cone and closed geodesic meeting the top circle of cone at one point.










share|cite|improve this question



















  • 1




    If we agree that that's what $M$ is, then the Euler characteristic is indeed $0$.
    – Ted Shifrin
    Sep 6 at 4:31






  • 1




    @민광건 I see what the problem is. If one incorrectly computes exterior angles for $partial M$, one is led to the conclusion that $chi(M)=1$. But $chi(M)=0$ is absolutely correct. You cannot compute exterior angles from this picture in the plane.
    – Ted Shifrin
    Sep 6 at 4:51






  • 1




    @민광건 Hello! I've edited your question (and added a picture), since I think it may help clarify what you want. If my edit does not clarify what you intended to mean, feel free to roll it back. In the future, please try to present the objects which come from your context in a way that makes it immediately clear what is being talked about.
    – Aloizio Macedo♦
    Sep 6 at 5:43






  • 1




    @AloizioMacedo thanks actually it was first time for me to upload a question and it was somewhat difficult to make a clear question. I'm gonna try to do better in the future.
    – ë¯¼ê´‘ê±´
    Sep 6 at 7:16






  • 2




    I think the closing was overly quick, @JohnMa and Aloizio, given that some of us were engaged in the question. It still turns out to be a fascinating issue. Unless I'm being stupid, if I think of $partial M$ as a piecewise-smooth curve in one way, I get the wrong answer when I apply Gauss-Bonnet; if I think it the other way, I get the right answer. I'm a bit puzzled.
    – Ted Shifrin
    Sep 6 at 16:49














up vote
2
down vote

favorite
2












This pic below is an exploded view of a cone.



enter image description here



I'm trying to calculate the Euler characteristic of the surface made from the fragment $M$, i.e.,



enter image description here



At first I thought the Euler characteristic is 0, but the one who made this question says it is actually 1.



And this is actually a part of an exercise to find the total geodesic curvature of $partial M$. I tried to figure it out using the Gauss-Bonnet theorem.




I'm sorry that the question is not clear.
$M$ is the region between top circle of cone and closed geodesic meeting the top circle of cone at one point.










share|cite|improve this question



















  • 1




    If we agree that that's what $M$ is, then the Euler characteristic is indeed $0$.
    – Ted Shifrin
    Sep 6 at 4:31






  • 1




    @민광건 I see what the problem is. If one incorrectly computes exterior angles for $partial M$, one is led to the conclusion that $chi(M)=1$. But $chi(M)=0$ is absolutely correct. You cannot compute exterior angles from this picture in the plane.
    – Ted Shifrin
    Sep 6 at 4:51






  • 1




    @민광건 Hello! I've edited your question (and added a picture), since I think it may help clarify what you want. If my edit does not clarify what you intended to mean, feel free to roll it back. In the future, please try to present the objects which come from your context in a way that makes it immediately clear what is being talked about.
    – Aloizio Macedo♦
    Sep 6 at 5:43






  • 1




    @AloizioMacedo thanks actually it was first time for me to upload a question and it was somewhat difficult to make a clear question. I'm gonna try to do better in the future.
    – ë¯¼ê´‘ê±´
    Sep 6 at 7:16






  • 2




    I think the closing was overly quick, @JohnMa and Aloizio, given that some of us were engaged in the question. It still turns out to be a fascinating issue. Unless I'm being stupid, if I think of $partial M$ as a piecewise-smooth curve in one way, I get the wrong answer when I apply Gauss-Bonnet; if I think it the other way, I get the right answer. I'm a bit puzzled.
    – Ted Shifrin
    Sep 6 at 16:49












up vote
2
down vote

favorite
2









up vote
2
down vote

favorite
2






2





This pic below is an exploded view of a cone.



enter image description here



I'm trying to calculate the Euler characteristic of the surface made from the fragment $M$, i.e.,



enter image description here



At first I thought the Euler characteristic is 0, but the one who made this question says it is actually 1.



And this is actually a part of an exercise to find the total geodesic curvature of $partial M$. I tried to figure it out using the Gauss-Bonnet theorem.




I'm sorry that the question is not clear.
$M$ is the region between top circle of cone and closed geodesic meeting the top circle of cone at one point.










share|cite|improve this question















This pic below is an exploded view of a cone.



enter image description here



I'm trying to calculate the Euler characteristic of the surface made from the fragment $M$, i.e.,



enter image description here



At first I thought the Euler characteristic is 0, but the one who made this question says it is actually 1.



And this is actually a part of an exercise to find the total geodesic curvature of $partial M$. I tried to figure it out using the Gauss-Bonnet theorem.




I'm sorry that the question is not clear.
$M$ is the region between top circle of cone and closed geodesic meeting the top circle of cone at one point.







differential-geometry






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Sep 6 at 5:32









Aloizio Macedo♦

22.8k23483




22.8k23483










asked Sep 5 at 8:07









민광건

163




163







  • 1




    If we agree that that's what $M$ is, then the Euler characteristic is indeed $0$.
    – Ted Shifrin
    Sep 6 at 4:31






  • 1




    @민광건 I see what the problem is. If one incorrectly computes exterior angles for $partial M$, one is led to the conclusion that $chi(M)=1$. But $chi(M)=0$ is absolutely correct. You cannot compute exterior angles from this picture in the plane.
    – Ted Shifrin
    Sep 6 at 4:51






  • 1




    @민광건 Hello! I've edited your question (and added a picture), since I think it may help clarify what you want. If my edit does not clarify what you intended to mean, feel free to roll it back. In the future, please try to present the objects which come from your context in a way that makes it immediately clear what is being talked about.
    – Aloizio Macedo♦
    Sep 6 at 5:43






  • 1




    @AloizioMacedo thanks actually it was first time for me to upload a question and it was somewhat difficult to make a clear question. I'm gonna try to do better in the future.
    – ë¯¼ê´‘ê±´
    Sep 6 at 7:16






  • 2




    I think the closing was overly quick, @JohnMa and Aloizio, given that some of us were engaged in the question. It still turns out to be a fascinating issue. Unless I'm being stupid, if I think of $partial M$ as a piecewise-smooth curve in one way, I get the wrong answer when I apply Gauss-Bonnet; if I think it the other way, I get the right answer. I'm a bit puzzled.
    – Ted Shifrin
    Sep 6 at 16:49












  • 1




    If we agree that that's what $M$ is, then the Euler characteristic is indeed $0$.
    – Ted Shifrin
    Sep 6 at 4:31






  • 1




    @민광건 I see what the problem is. If one incorrectly computes exterior angles for $partial M$, one is led to the conclusion that $chi(M)=1$. But $chi(M)=0$ is absolutely correct. You cannot compute exterior angles from this picture in the plane.
    – Ted Shifrin
    Sep 6 at 4:51






  • 1




    @민광건 Hello! I've edited your question (and added a picture), since I think it may help clarify what you want. If my edit does not clarify what you intended to mean, feel free to roll it back. In the future, please try to present the objects which come from your context in a way that makes it immediately clear what is being talked about.
    – Aloizio Macedo♦
    Sep 6 at 5:43






  • 1




    @AloizioMacedo thanks actually it was first time for me to upload a question and it was somewhat difficult to make a clear question. I'm gonna try to do better in the future.
    – ë¯¼ê´‘ê±´
    Sep 6 at 7:16






  • 2




    I think the closing was overly quick, @JohnMa and Aloizio, given that some of us were engaged in the question. It still turns out to be a fascinating issue. Unless I'm being stupid, if I think of $partial M$ as a piecewise-smooth curve in one way, I get the wrong answer when I apply Gauss-Bonnet; if I think it the other way, I get the right answer. I'm a bit puzzled.
    – Ted Shifrin
    Sep 6 at 16:49







1




1




If we agree that that's what $M$ is, then the Euler characteristic is indeed $0$.
– Ted Shifrin
Sep 6 at 4:31




If we agree that that's what $M$ is, then the Euler characteristic is indeed $0$.
– Ted Shifrin
Sep 6 at 4:31




1




1




@민광건 I see what the problem is. If one incorrectly computes exterior angles for $partial M$, one is led to the conclusion that $chi(M)=1$. But $chi(M)=0$ is absolutely correct. You cannot compute exterior angles from this picture in the plane.
– Ted Shifrin
Sep 6 at 4:51




@민광건 I see what the problem is. If one incorrectly computes exterior angles for $partial M$, one is led to the conclusion that $chi(M)=1$. But $chi(M)=0$ is absolutely correct. You cannot compute exterior angles from this picture in the plane.
– Ted Shifrin
Sep 6 at 4:51




1




1




@민광건 Hello! I've edited your question (and added a picture), since I think it may help clarify what you want. If my edit does not clarify what you intended to mean, feel free to roll it back. In the future, please try to present the objects which come from your context in a way that makes it immediately clear what is being talked about.
– Aloizio Macedo♦
Sep 6 at 5:43




@민광건 Hello! I've edited your question (and added a picture), since I think it may help clarify what you want. If my edit does not clarify what you intended to mean, feel free to roll it back. In the future, please try to present the objects which come from your context in a way that makes it immediately clear what is being talked about.
– Aloizio Macedo♦
Sep 6 at 5:43




1




1




@AloizioMacedo thanks actually it was first time for me to upload a question and it was somewhat difficult to make a clear question. I'm gonna try to do better in the future.
– ë¯¼ê´‘ê±´
Sep 6 at 7:16




@AloizioMacedo thanks actually it was first time for me to upload a question and it was somewhat difficult to make a clear question. I'm gonna try to do better in the future.
– ë¯¼ê´‘ê±´
Sep 6 at 7:16




2




2




I think the closing was overly quick, @JohnMa and Aloizio, given that some of us were engaged in the question. It still turns out to be a fascinating issue. Unless I'm being stupid, if I think of $partial M$ as a piecewise-smooth curve in one way, I get the wrong answer when I apply Gauss-Bonnet; if I think it the other way, I get the right answer. I'm a bit puzzled.
– Ted Shifrin
Sep 6 at 16:49




I think the closing was overly quick, @JohnMa and Aloizio, given that some of us were engaged in the question. It still turns out to be a fascinating issue. Unless I'm being stupid, if I think of $partial M$ as a piecewise-smooth curve in one way, I get the wrong answer when I apply Gauss-Bonnet; if I think it the other way, I get the right answer. I'm a bit puzzled.
– Ted Shifrin
Sep 6 at 16:49










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
0
down vote













If I'm reading that picture correctly, the Euler characteristic shouldn't exist.



The subset $M$ of the cone looks like it started as a topological disk facing left, and is curving to the right to connect back with itself, and will become a topological cylinder (a sphere with 2 disks removed).



A disk has $chi=1$ , and a cylinder has $chi=0$ . The surface $M$ is between those.



Nevertheless, Euler's formula can be applied to a polygonalization of $M$, formed as a square pyramid with 2 opposite triangles removed; the peak of the pyramid is the singular point.



The pyramid has $5$ vertices, $8$ edges, and $3$ faces. Thus $chi=5-8+3=0$.






share|cite|improve this answer



























    up vote
    -2
    down vote













    enter image description here



    We have Gauss Bonnet theorem



    $$ int K dA + int kappa_g ,ds= 2 pi chi $$



    Solid angle $int K dA= 0$ on the flat development of cone.



    Rotation in the plane of development (across cone base and geodesic) consists of summing three exterior angles counter-clockwise $Sigma psi_i= 2 pi $ around the contour for the line integral which can be readily found as:



    $$ Sigma psi_i = int kappa_geodesic, ds = (pi- beta) + 2 beta + (pi- beta) = 2 pi$$



    The angles are invariant in isometric mappings from 3D cone to a cone development and so it is a good way to compute these angles as above.



    Plug these angles into GB theorem and we have



    $$ 0+ 2 pi = 2 pi chirightarrow chi=1. $$



    It can be noted that the geodesic arc is not an arc of a circle but a segment of a generalized sine-curve.






    share|cite|improve this answer


















    • 1




      Your computation is wrong, as $chi = 0$, as I've explained in comments.
      – Ted Shifrin
      Sep 9 at 4:20










    • It’s wrong again. Please integrate total geodesic curvuture with its defnition and see what happens.
      – ë¯¼ê´‘ê±´
      Sep 9 at 11:33

















    up vote
    -3
    down vote













    Gauss- Bonnet theorem establishes the connection/identity between isometric (left hand side of equation) and Euler topological constant (right hand side ). In short



    $ int K dA + int kappa_g ,ds= 2 pi chi$



    where for compact surfaces the first term is total/integral curvature or solid angle in steridians, second term is rotation in tangent plane measured in radians which together elegantly sum up to Euler charactristic $2 pi chi.$ Sudden jumps with geodesics can be accommodated/interpreted as external angles sum $Sigma psi_i$ around the contour for the line integral.



    For a Torus with cancelling geodesic sections:



    $0+ 0=2 pi chi rightarrow , chi=0 tag1$



    For a hemisphere bounded by an equator:



    $2 pi +0 = 2 pi chi rightarrow , chi=1 tag2 $



    For a closed convex loop on a developable surface (Gauss curvature $K=0,$ for cones, cylinders/developable helicoids) for either continuous ( like a circle in a flat plane or non-intersecting continuous loop on a curved surface) curves or discontinuous sloped curves (segment of circle $M$ like the one you sketched of developed cone patch):



    $0+ 2 pi=2 pi chi rightarrow , chi=1 tag3 $



    The matter is thus established by isometry/topological considerations.



    EDIT1:



    I am in agreement with the question setter. I would suppose he wanted the student to recognize a group of such isometric/homeomorphic equivalents.






    share|cite|improve this answer






















    • This doesn't really address the question.
      – Ted Shifrin
      Sep 7 at 0:52










    • Sorry but I think you didn't get what the question is.
      – ë¯¼ê´‘ê±´
      Sep 7 at 2:02










    • You're in agreement with the question setter? That person is totally wrong. As i said earlier, the puzzle comes with applying Gauss-Bonnet, calculating total geodesic curvature, and exterior angles. You should try that instead of writing irrelevant prose.
      – Ted Shifrin
      Sep 7 at 2:15











    Your Answer




    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    );
    );
    , "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: false,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













     

    draft saved


    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2906003%2fits-confusing-to-calculate-euler-characteristic-of-this-surface%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest






























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    0
    down vote













    If I'm reading that picture correctly, the Euler characteristic shouldn't exist.



    The subset $M$ of the cone looks like it started as a topological disk facing left, and is curving to the right to connect back with itself, and will become a topological cylinder (a sphere with 2 disks removed).



    A disk has $chi=1$ , and a cylinder has $chi=0$ . The surface $M$ is between those.



    Nevertheless, Euler's formula can be applied to a polygonalization of $M$, formed as a square pyramid with 2 opposite triangles removed; the peak of the pyramid is the singular point.



    The pyramid has $5$ vertices, $8$ edges, and $3$ faces. Thus $chi=5-8+3=0$.






    share|cite|improve this answer
























      up vote
      0
      down vote













      If I'm reading that picture correctly, the Euler characteristic shouldn't exist.



      The subset $M$ of the cone looks like it started as a topological disk facing left, and is curving to the right to connect back with itself, and will become a topological cylinder (a sphere with 2 disks removed).



      A disk has $chi=1$ , and a cylinder has $chi=0$ . The surface $M$ is between those.



      Nevertheless, Euler's formula can be applied to a polygonalization of $M$, formed as a square pyramid with 2 opposite triangles removed; the peak of the pyramid is the singular point.



      The pyramid has $5$ vertices, $8$ edges, and $3$ faces. Thus $chi=5-8+3=0$.






      share|cite|improve this answer






















        up vote
        0
        down vote










        up vote
        0
        down vote









        If I'm reading that picture correctly, the Euler characteristic shouldn't exist.



        The subset $M$ of the cone looks like it started as a topological disk facing left, and is curving to the right to connect back with itself, and will become a topological cylinder (a sphere with 2 disks removed).



        A disk has $chi=1$ , and a cylinder has $chi=0$ . The surface $M$ is between those.



        Nevertheless, Euler's formula can be applied to a polygonalization of $M$, formed as a square pyramid with 2 opposite triangles removed; the peak of the pyramid is the singular point.



        The pyramid has $5$ vertices, $8$ edges, and $3$ faces. Thus $chi=5-8+3=0$.






        share|cite|improve this answer












        If I'm reading that picture correctly, the Euler characteristic shouldn't exist.



        The subset $M$ of the cone looks like it started as a topological disk facing left, and is curving to the right to connect back with itself, and will become a topological cylinder (a sphere with 2 disks removed).



        A disk has $chi=1$ , and a cylinder has $chi=0$ . The surface $M$ is between those.



        Nevertheless, Euler's formula can be applied to a polygonalization of $M$, formed as a square pyramid with 2 opposite triangles removed; the peak of the pyramid is the singular point.



        The pyramid has $5$ vertices, $8$ edges, and $3$ faces. Thus $chi=5-8+3=0$.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered yesterday









        mr_e_man

        1,114422




        1,114422




















            up vote
            -2
            down vote













            enter image description here



            We have Gauss Bonnet theorem



            $$ int K dA + int kappa_g ,ds= 2 pi chi $$



            Solid angle $int K dA= 0$ on the flat development of cone.



            Rotation in the plane of development (across cone base and geodesic) consists of summing three exterior angles counter-clockwise $Sigma psi_i= 2 pi $ around the contour for the line integral which can be readily found as:



            $$ Sigma psi_i = int kappa_geodesic, ds = (pi- beta) + 2 beta + (pi- beta) = 2 pi$$



            The angles are invariant in isometric mappings from 3D cone to a cone development and so it is a good way to compute these angles as above.



            Plug these angles into GB theorem and we have



            $$ 0+ 2 pi = 2 pi chirightarrow chi=1. $$



            It can be noted that the geodesic arc is not an arc of a circle but a segment of a generalized sine-curve.






            share|cite|improve this answer


















            • 1




              Your computation is wrong, as $chi = 0$, as I've explained in comments.
              – Ted Shifrin
              Sep 9 at 4:20










            • It’s wrong again. Please integrate total geodesic curvuture with its defnition and see what happens.
              – ë¯¼ê´‘ê±´
              Sep 9 at 11:33














            up vote
            -2
            down vote













            enter image description here



            We have Gauss Bonnet theorem



            $$ int K dA + int kappa_g ,ds= 2 pi chi $$



            Solid angle $int K dA= 0$ on the flat development of cone.



            Rotation in the plane of development (across cone base and geodesic) consists of summing three exterior angles counter-clockwise $Sigma psi_i= 2 pi $ around the contour for the line integral which can be readily found as:



            $$ Sigma psi_i = int kappa_geodesic, ds = (pi- beta) + 2 beta + (pi- beta) = 2 pi$$



            The angles are invariant in isometric mappings from 3D cone to a cone development and so it is a good way to compute these angles as above.



            Plug these angles into GB theorem and we have



            $$ 0+ 2 pi = 2 pi chirightarrow chi=1. $$



            It can be noted that the geodesic arc is not an arc of a circle but a segment of a generalized sine-curve.






            share|cite|improve this answer


















            • 1




              Your computation is wrong, as $chi = 0$, as I've explained in comments.
              – Ted Shifrin
              Sep 9 at 4:20










            • It’s wrong again. Please integrate total geodesic curvuture with its defnition and see what happens.
              – ë¯¼ê´‘ê±´
              Sep 9 at 11:33












            up vote
            -2
            down vote










            up vote
            -2
            down vote









            enter image description here



            We have Gauss Bonnet theorem



            $$ int K dA + int kappa_g ,ds= 2 pi chi $$



            Solid angle $int K dA= 0$ on the flat development of cone.



            Rotation in the plane of development (across cone base and geodesic) consists of summing three exterior angles counter-clockwise $Sigma psi_i= 2 pi $ around the contour for the line integral which can be readily found as:



            $$ Sigma psi_i = int kappa_geodesic, ds = (pi- beta) + 2 beta + (pi- beta) = 2 pi$$



            The angles are invariant in isometric mappings from 3D cone to a cone development and so it is a good way to compute these angles as above.



            Plug these angles into GB theorem and we have



            $$ 0+ 2 pi = 2 pi chirightarrow chi=1. $$



            It can be noted that the geodesic arc is not an arc of a circle but a segment of a generalized sine-curve.






            share|cite|improve this answer














            enter image description here



            We have Gauss Bonnet theorem



            $$ int K dA + int kappa_g ,ds= 2 pi chi $$



            Solid angle $int K dA= 0$ on the flat development of cone.



            Rotation in the plane of development (across cone base and geodesic) consists of summing three exterior angles counter-clockwise $Sigma psi_i= 2 pi $ around the contour for the line integral which can be readily found as:



            $$ Sigma psi_i = int kappa_geodesic, ds = (pi- beta) + 2 beta + (pi- beta) = 2 pi$$



            The angles are invariant in isometric mappings from 3D cone to a cone development and so it is a good way to compute these angles as above.



            Plug these angles into GB theorem and we have



            $$ 0+ 2 pi = 2 pi chirightarrow chi=1. $$



            It can be noted that the geodesic arc is not an arc of a circle but a segment of a generalized sine-curve.







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited Sep 9 at 0:05

























            answered Sep 8 at 21:02









            Narasimham

            20.3k52057




            20.3k52057







            • 1




              Your computation is wrong, as $chi = 0$, as I've explained in comments.
              – Ted Shifrin
              Sep 9 at 4:20










            • It’s wrong again. Please integrate total geodesic curvuture with its defnition and see what happens.
              – ë¯¼ê´‘ê±´
              Sep 9 at 11:33












            • 1




              Your computation is wrong, as $chi = 0$, as I've explained in comments.
              – Ted Shifrin
              Sep 9 at 4:20










            • It’s wrong again. Please integrate total geodesic curvuture with its defnition and see what happens.
              – ë¯¼ê´‘ê±´
              Sep 9 at 11:33







            1




            1




            Your computation is wrong, as $chi = 0$, as I've explained in comments.
            – Ted Shifrin
            Sep 9 at 4:20




            Your computation is wrong, as $chi = 0$, as I've explained in comments.
            – Ted Shifrin
            Sep 9 at 4:20












            It’s wrong again. Please integrate total geodesic curvuture with its defnition and see what happens.
            – ë¯¼ê´‘ê±´
            Sep 9 at 11:33




            It’s wrong again. Please integrate total geodesic curvuture with its defnition and see what happens.
            – ë¯¼ê´‘ê±´
            Sep 9 at 11:33










            up vote
            -3
            down vote













            Gauss- Bonnet theorem establishes the connection/identity between isometric (left hand side of equation) and Euler topological constant (right hand side ). In short



            $ int K dA + int kappa_g ,ds= 2 pi chi$



            where for compact surfaces the first term is total/integral curvature or solid angle in steridians, second term is rotation in tangent plane measured in radians which together elegantly sum up to Euler charactristic $2 pi chi.$ Sudden jumps with geodesics can be accommodated/interpreted as external angles sum $Sigma psi_i$ around the contour for the line integral.



            For a Torus with cancelling geodesic sections:



            $0+ 0=2 pi chi rightarrow , chi=0 tag1$



            For a hemisphere bounded by an equator:



            $2 pi +0 = 2 pi chi rightarrow , chi=1 tag2 $



            For a closed convex loop on a developable surface (Gauss curvature $K=0,$ for cones, cylinders/developable helicoids) for either continuous ( like a circle in a flat plane or non-intersecting continuous loop on a curved surface) curves or discontinuous sloped curves (segment of circle $M$ like the one you sketched of developed cone patch):



            $0+ 2 pi=2 pi chi rightarrow , chi=1 tag3 $



            The matter is thus established by isometry/topological considerations.



            EDIT1:



            I am in agreement with the question setter. I would suppose he wanted the student to recognize a group of such isometric/homeomorphic equivalents.






            share|cite|improve this answer






















            • This doesn't really address the question.
              – Ted Shifrin
              Sep 7 at 0:52










            • Sorry but I think you didn't get what the question is.
              – ë¯¼ê´‘ê±´
              Sep 7 at 2:02










            • You're in agreement with the question setter? That person is totally wrong. As i said earlier, the puzzle comes with applying Gauss-Bonnet, calculating total geodesic curvature, and exterior angles. You should try that instead of writing irrelevant prose.
              – Ted Shifrin
              Sep 7 at 2:15















            up vote
            -3
            down vote













            Gauss- Bonnet theorem establishes the connection/identity between isometric (left hand side of equation) and Euler topological constant (right hand side ). In short



            $ int K dA + int kappa_g ,ds= 2 pi chi$



            where for compact surfaces the first term is total/integral curvature or solid angle in steridians, second term is rotation in tangent plane measured in radians which together elegantly sum up to Euler charactristic $2 pi chi.$ Sudden jumps with geodesics can be accommodated/interpreted as external angles sum $Sigma psi_i$ around the contour for the line integral.



            For a Torus with cancelling geodesic sections:



            $0+ 0=2 pi chi rightarrow , chi=0 tag1$



            For a hemisphere bounded by an equator:



            $2 pi +0 = 2 pi chi rightarrow , chi=1 tag2 $



            For a closed convex loop on a developable surface (Gauss curvature $K=0,$ for cones, cylinders/developable helicoids) for either continuous ( like a circle in a flat plane or non-intersecting continuous loop on a curved surface) curves or discontinuous sloped curves (segment of circle $M$ like the one you sketched of developed cone patch):



            $0+ 2 pi=2 pi chi rightarrow , chi=1 tag3 $



            The matter is thus established by isometry/topological considerations.



            EDIT1:



            I am in agreement with the question setter. I would suppose he wanted the student to recognize a group of such isometric/homeomorphic equivalents.






            share|cite|improve this answer






















            • This doesn't really address the question.
              – Ted Shifrin
              Sep 7 at 0:52










            • Sorry but I think you didn't get what the question is.
              – ë¯¼ê´‘ê±´
              Sep 7 at 2:02










            • You're in agreement with the question setter? That person is totally wrong. As i said earlier, the puzzle comes with applying Gauss-Bonnet, calculating total geodesic curvature, and exterior angles. You should try that instead of writing irrelevant prose.
              – Ted Shifrin
              Sep 7 at 2:15













            up vote
            -3
            down vote










            up vote
            -3
            down vote









            Gauss- Bonnet theorem establishes the connection/identity between isometric (left hand side of equation) and Euler topological constant (right hand side ). In short



            $ int K dA + int kappa_g ,ds= 2 pi chi$



            where for compact surfaces the first term is total/integral curvature or solid angle in steridians, second term is rotation in tangent plane measured in radians which together elegantly sum up to Euler charactristic $2 pi chi.$ Sudden jumps with geodesics can be accommodated/interpreted as external angles sum $Sigma psi_i$ around the contour for the line integral.



            For a Torus with cancelling geodesic sections:



            $0+ 0=2 pi chi rightarrow , chi=0 tag1$



            For a hemisphere bounded by an equator:



            $2 pi +0 = 2 pi chi rightarrow , chi=1 tag2 $



            For a closed convex loop on a developable surface (Gauss curvature $K=0,$ for cones, cylinders/developable helicoids) for either continuous ( like a circle in a flat plane or non-intersecting continuous loop on a curved surface) curves or discontinuous sloped curves (segment of circle $M$ like the one you sketched of developed cone patch):



            $0+ 2 pi=2 pi chi rightarrow , chi=1 tag3 $



            The matter is thus established by isometry/topological considerations.



            EDIT1:



            I am in agreement with the question setter. I would suppose he wanted the student to recognize a group of such isometric/homeomorphic equivalents.






            share|cite|improve this answer














            Gauss- Bonnet theorem establishes the connection/identity between isometric (left hand side of equation) and Euler topological constant (right hand side ). In short



            $ int K dA + int kappa_g ,ds= 2 pi chi$



            where for compact surfaces the first term is total/integral curvature or solid angle in steridians, second term is rotation in tangent plane measured in radians which together elegantly sum up to Euler charactristic $2 pi chi.$ Sudden jumps with geodesics can be accommodated/interpreted as external angles sum $Sigma psi_i$ around the contour for the line integral.



            For a Torus with cancelling geodesic sections:



            $0+ 0=2 pi chi rightarrow , chi=0 tag1$



            For a hemisphere bounded by an equator:



            $2 pi +0 = 2 pi chi rightarrow , chi=1 tag2 $



            For a closed convex loop on a developable surface (Gauss curvature $K=0,$ for cones, cylinders/developable helicoids) for either continuous ( like a circle in a flat plane or non-intersecting continuous loop on a curved surface) curves or discontinuous sloped curves (segment of circle $M$ like the one you sketched of developed cone patch):



            $0+ 2 pi=2 pi chi rightarrow , chi=1 tag3 $



            The matter is thus established by isometry/topological considerations.



            EDIT1:



            I am in agreement with the question setter. I would suppose he wanted the student to recognize a group of such isometric/homeomorphic equivalents.







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited Sep 6 at 23:44

























            answered Sep 6 at 20:59









            Narasimham

            20.3k52057




            20.3k52057











            • This doesn't really address the question.
              – Ted Shifrin
              Sep 7 at 0:52










            • Sorry but I think you didn't get what the question is.
              – ë¯¼ê´‘ê±´
              Sep 7 at 2:02










            • You're in agreement with the question setter? That person is totally wrong. As i said earlier, the puzzle comes with applying Gauss-Bonnet, calculating total geodesic curvature, and exterior angles. You should try that instead of writing irrelevant prose.
              – Ted Shifrin
              Sep 7 at 2:15

















            • This doesn't really address the question.
              – Ted Shifrin
              Sep 7 at 0:52










            • Sorry but I think you didn't get what the question is.
              – ë¯¼ê´‘ê±´
              Sep 7 at 2:02










            • You're in agreement with the question setter? That person is totally wrong. As i said earlier, the puzzle comes with applying Gauss-Bonnet, calculating total geodesic curvature, and exterior angles. You should try that instead of writing irrelevant prose.
              – Ted Shifrin
              Sep 7 at 2:15
















            This doesn't really address the question.
            – Ted Shifrin
            Sep 7 at 0:52




            This doesn't really address the question.
            – Ted Shifrin
            Sep 7 at 0:52












            Sorry but I think you didn't get what the question is.
            – ë¯¼ê´‘ê±´
            Sep 7 at 2:02




            Sorry but I think you didn't get what the question is.
            – ë¯¼ê´‘ê±´
            Sep 7 at 2:02












            You're in agreement with the question setter? That person is totally wrong. As i said earlier, the puzzle comes with applying Gauss-Bonnet, calculating total geodesic curvature, and exterior angles. You should try that instead of writing irrelevant prose.
            – Ted Shifrin
            Sep 7 at 2:15





            You're in agreement with the question setter? That person is totally wrong. As i said earlier, the puzzle comes with applying Gauss-Bonnet, calculating total geodesic curvature, and exterior angles. You should try that instead of writing irrelevant prose.
            – Ted Shifrin
            Sep 7 at 2:15


















             

            draft saved


            draft discarded















































             


            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2906003%2fits-confusing-to-calculate-euler-characteristic-of-this-surface%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest













































































            這個網誌中的熱門文章

            How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

            Carbon dioxide

            Why am i infinitely getting the same tweet with the Twitter Search API?