## The Set Tour, Part 9: Balls, Only The Insides

Last week in the tour of often-used domains I talked about **S ^{n}**, the surfaces of spheres. These correspond naturally to stuff like the surfaces of planets, or the edges of surfaces. They are also natural fits if you have a quantity that’s made up of a couple of components, and some total amount of the quantity is fixed. More physical systems do that than you might have guessed.

But this is all the surfaces. The great interior of a planet is by definition left out of **S ^{n}**. This gives away the heart of what this week’s entry in the set tour is.

## **B**^{n}

^{n}

**B ^{n}** is the domain that’s the interior of a sphere. That is,

**B**would be all the points in a three-dimensional space that are less than a particular radius from the origin, from the center of space. If we don’t say what the particular radius is, then we mean “1”. That’s just as with the

^{3}**S**we meant the radius to be “1” unless someone specifically says otherwise. In practice, I don’t remember anyone ever saying otherwise when I was in grad school. I suppose they might if we were doing a numerical simulation of something like the interior of a planet. You know, something where it could make a difference what the radius is.

^{n} It may have struck you that **B ^{3}** is just the points that are inside

**S**. Alternatively, it might have struck you that

^{2}**S**is the points that are on the edge of

^{2}**B**. Either way is right.

^{3}**B**and

^{n}**S**, for any positive whole number n, are tied together, one the edge and the other the interior.

^{n-1} **B ^{n}** we tend to call the “ball” or the “n-ball”. Probably we hope that suggests bouncing balls and baseballs and other objects that are solid throughout.

**S**we tend to call the “sphere” or the “n-sphere”, though I admit that doesn’t make a strong case for ruling out the inside of the sphere. Maybe we should think of it as the surface. We don’t even have to change the letter representing it.

^{n} As the “n” suggests, there are balls for as many dimensions of space as you like. **B ^{2}** is a circle, filled in.

**B**is just a line segment, stretching out from -1 to 1.

^{1}**B**is what’s inside a planet or an orange or an amusement park’s glass light fixture.

^{3}**B**is more work than I want to do today.

^{4} So here’s a natural question: does **B ^{n}** include

**S**? That is, when we talk about a ball in three dimensions, do we mean the surface and everything inside it? Or do we just mean the interior, stopping ever so short of the surface? This is a division very much like dividing the real numbers into negative and positive; do you include zero among other set?

^{n-1} Typically, I think, mathematicians don’t. If a mathematician speaks of **B ^{3}** without saying otherwise, she

*probably*means the interior of a three-dimensional ball. She’s not saying anything one way or the other about the surface. This we name the “open ball”, and if she wants to avoid any ambiguity she will say “the open ball

**B**”.

^{n} “Open” here means the same thing it does when speaking of an “open set”. That may not communicate well to people who don’t remember their set theory. It means that the edges aren’t included. (**Warning!** Not actual set theory! *Do not* attempt to use that at your thesis defense. That description was *only* a reference to what’s important about this property in this particular context.)

If a mathematician wants to talk about the ball *and* the surface, she might say “the closed ball **B ^{n}**”. This means to take the surface and the interior together. “Closed”, again, here means what it does in set theory. It pretty much means “include the edges”. (

**Warning!**See above warning.)

Balls work well as domains for functions that have to describe the interiors of things. They also work if we want to talk about a constraint that’s made up of a couple of components, and that can be up to some size but not larger. For example, suppose you may put up to a certain budget cap into (say) six different projects, but you aren’t required to use the entire budget. We could model your budgeting as finding the point in **B ^{6}** that gets the best result. How you measure the best is a problem for your operations research people. All I’m telling you is how we might represent the study of the thing you’re doing.

## ivasallay 4:38 pm

onWednesday, 25 November, 2015 Permalink |I didn’t know any of this before, but it was well written and easy enough to understand. Thanks.

LikeLiked by 1 person

## Joseph Nebus 6:23 am

onSaturday, 28 November, 2015 Permalink |Thank you. I’m most glad to hear it. I’m surprised how many of this sequence I keep finding I should write.

LikeLiked by 1 person

## The Set Tour, Part 10: Lots of Spheres | nebusresearch 3:00 pm

onThursday, 10 December, 2015 Permalink |[…] of the previous ones. First is the set Sn, that is, the surface of a hypersphere in n+1 dimensions. Second is Bn, the ball — the interior — of a hypersphere in n dimensions. Yeah, it bugs me too that Sn isn’t the surface of Bn. But it’d be too […]

LikeLike

## The Set Tour, Part 11: Doughnuts And Lots Of Them | nebusresearch 5:02 pm

onThursday, 14 January, 2016 Permalink |[…] might wonder how big the doughnut is. When we talked about the surface of the sphere, S2, or the surface and interior, B3, we figured on a sphere with radius of 1 unless we heard otherwise. Toruses would seem to have two […]

LikeLike