MCF-stack: Special Solutions of Mean Curvature Flow

§ 2.17 Chopp two-handled cone candidate50368E5C98D8

Earliest recorded reference: (publication year).

Paper credits and chronology

Paper credits are chronological and include every author of the cited papers. They identify sources, not exclusive discovery credit. Background-only citations do not determine the date of this example. A classical example may predate the references recorded here.

  1. Chopp — 1994 (publication year).
50368E5C98D8
48A9185FB30C

(Numerical genus-one surface with two ends) Chopp's two-handled cone is a numerical shrinker candidate in $\mathbb R^3$, with dimension two, codimension one, and the intended topology of a twice-punctured torus. Thus its surface genus is one and it has two topological ends; the phrase “two-handled” is not a genus count. The initial surface consists of two horizontal planes joined by the three crossing tubes shown in Figure 21. A ratio of handle cross-sectional areas selects a level, and an area to the power $3/2$ controls dilation.

The resulting geometry is a finite-window numerical approximation, not a closed formula or an existence theorem. The intended normalized flow is $M_ t=\sqrt{-t}\, \Sigma $, $t<0$, with $\vec H=-X^\perp /2$. The target is an embedded noncompact surface without boundary; the computation does not prove a complete proper extension. Its two ends appear conical. Figure 23 records angular variation of the cone opening, so one should not substitute a rotational double cone for the observed asymptotic cone. The reported minimum opening is about $0.739$ radians; it is a numerical estimate, not an exact asymptotic invariant. The coordinate-reflection pattern is visible in Figures 20–21; no continuous rotational symmetry or general parameter family is asserted.

The reported self-similarity diagnostic is $E=0.01983$, excluding boundary sample points, on a $100\times 100\times 100$ grid. See [Chopp1994], Section 4.4, pp. 11–12, Figures 20–23. Neither a uniqueness or stability theorem nor a Gaussian area or entropy value is established. The paper proposes a possible relation to fattening; it does not prove that this candidate fattens. In particular, the later argument for the four-handled example in Example 2.18 does not establish that claim for this smaller opening. The original rotatable schematic shows genus one and two flaring ends; its slopes and neck shapes are illustrative.

Original topology schematic: genus 1, 2 ends. Chopp’s paper reports a numerical candidate; this drawing is not his mesh and does not solve the shrinker equation. Scale and neck shapes are illustrative. Outer rims and cutaway edges are display boundaries.
Schematic of a numerical candidate. Original topology schematic: genus 1, 2 ends. Chopp’s paper reports a numerical candidate; this drawing is not his mesh and does not solve the shrinker equation. Scale and neck shapes are illustrative. Outer rims and cutaway edges are display boundaries. Open drawing · Numerical references and credits

Ambient space, topology, embeddedness and entropy

Numerical shrinker candidate, not a proved existence result for this computed surface. Topology and compactness describe the intended surface; the drawing is schematic.

Numerical candidate: Chopp two-handled cone candidate · Euclidean space ℝ³ · Not recorded
Ambient space
Euclidean space ℝ³
Topology
Intended orientable genus-1 surface minus 2 points
Embeddedness
Not recorded: The target is embedded and the numerical construction uses embedded level sets, but existence of an exact embedded shrinker with these properties is not proved in the reviewed computation.
Compactness
Noncompact
Surface genus
1, the topology of the numerical candidate
Topological ends
2, for the intended complete surface; finite-window boundaries are not ends
Entropy
Not recorded: No entropy value or bound established for this numerical candidate. The self-similarity diagnostic E is not entropy.
Gaussian area
Not recorded: No normalized centered Gaussian area recorded; do not infer it from the drawing or identify it with entropy for an approximate surface.

Compare examples by these properties →

References on this page

  1. [Chopp1994] David L. Chopp. Computation of self-similar solutions for mean curvature flow. Experimental Mathematics, 3(1):1–15, 1994. Journal scan reviewed in full. Five numerical candidates in Sections 4.1–4.4 and 4.6; the four-handled dumbbell in Section 4.5 fails the self-similarity test. No existence proof is supplied. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/10586458.1994.10504572, doi:10.1080/10586458.1994.10504572.All uses in this project ↩ 1
Cite this page

Comments

Comments are not enabled yet.