Associated Topics || Dr. Math Home || Search Dr. Math

### Number of Cylinder Edges

```
Date: 04/01/2002 at 12:16:20
From: David Saray
Subject: Number of edges in a solid cylinder

Dear Sir:

My 8-year-old son was asked "how many edges are there on a solid
cylinder?" on a recent math examination.

His answer was "2" and it was marked as incorrect.

He truly believes in his answer and has asked for my assistance in
researching.

Can you assist?
Thank you.
```

```
Date: 04/01/2002 at 12:33:11
From: Doctor Peterson
Subject: Re: Number of edges in a solid cylinder

Hi, David.

It depends on how "edge" was defined in his class, which may not agree
with his intuitive definition.

Often, an edge is required to be straight, in which case a cylinder
has no edges. Unfortunately, elementary texts are not always very
are really worthless. The only definition of "edge" that would make
sense in this context would be the one your son is naturally using (a
boundary between smooth surfaces making up an object), which would
allow a cylinder to have two edges. Asking this question with the
other definition only invites confusion, so I wish they wouldn't ask
it. I'd like to hear how they did define the word.

You can read some other discussions of related issues here:

Does a Cone have an Edge? A Vertex?
http://mathforum.org/dr.math/problems/mark.03.12.02.html

- Doctor Peterson, The Math Forum
http://mathforum.org/dr.math/
```

```
Date: 04/01/2002 at 13:03:33
From: Doctor Sarah
Subject: Re: Number of edges in a solid cylinder

David asked the same question in the discussion group geometry-pre-
college, where it received these responses:

http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=1077941

Subject: Re: How Many Edges On  SOLID CYLINDER
Author:  Walter Whiteley <whiteley@mathstat.yorku.ca>
Date:    Mon, 1 Apr 2002 12:48:47 -0500 (EST)

This is a common issue among elementary teachers, and some elementary
text book writers. Basically different sources put down different

The underlying issue is: what is the context? What is the larger
mathematics one wants to engage with? Without this, there are too many
plausible responses.

One is almost certainly starting with the known definitions and
answers for convex polyhedra. The faces are flat plane regions. The
edges are where two faces meet (and lie along lines). The vertices are
where three or more faces meet (three or more edges as well) and are
points. The overall pattern has a nice mathematical structure given by
Euler's formula  |V| - |E| + |F| = 2.

Now one wants to extend this to other creatures. Perhaps non-convex
but spherical polyhedra. Perhaps general topological surfaces (the
counts do not change if the polyhedron is made of rubber and deformed
without cutting or gluing). Perhaps higher dimensions.

If the context is topology, then one works down the topological
features of the convex polyhedron.
(a) A face is a topological polygon - a disc with boundary of edges
and vertices.
(b) An edge is a closed curve, with two boundary edges - vertices.
(c) A vertex is a point.

Together the vertices and edges form a connected graph. (Whether you
allow two edges between a fixed pair of vertices, or a loop which has
the same vertex at both ends is not critical for the topology.)

With this in mind, you still can talk about spherical topology.
Basically, a connected graph drawn on a sphere without crossings, with
the regions cut out forming the faces. This still satisfies Euler's
formula: |V| - |E| + |F| = 2.

If you draw a graph on, say, a torus, or make a torus out of polyhedron
pieces, so that the faces are still discs, then you have a new form
of Euler's formula  |V| - |E| + |F| = 0.  Similar formulae exist for
covering other surfaces with discs, edges, vertices.

However, to make those formulae work in that simple context, you need
to ensure the faces have a single polygon as the boundary, and the
edges do have vertices at their ends.

How might this relate to a cylinder? Well, in many elementary texts,
one studies the 'net' - the flat paper pieces which one might use to
fold up to the surface.  The standard net for a cylinder has two
circular discs on the ends, and a rectangle which is to be taped
together along two opposite sides to form the sides of the cylinder.
If you study the taping of the net, you can tape it up with three
pieces of tape (one at each end, and one along the sides). You have
two points at which a couple of pieces of tape meet - the ends
of the side slit. You have three faces which are discs. In this image,
you have  |V|=2, |E|=3, |F|=3  and |V|-|E| + |F| = 2. So this image
makes good sense from the point of view of topology and counting with
Euler.

Note that we had to slit the tube of the cylinder, creating an extra
edge, in order to make that face a disc, and to restore the formula.
It is, however, a sensible process.

In the same spirit, one would have to cut up a sphere in order to make
it work in the topology. E.g. put down an equator, with a vertex where
the two ends of the equator meet. This would give
|V| - |E| + |F| = 1 - 1 + 2 = 2.

However, some elementary texts and test writers decide they know best
and give distinct definitions of 'faces', 'edges', and 'vertices'.
When doing so, there should be some good mathematical reason for doing
that. Some set of situations one is trying to make sense of. Simple
extrapolation on one basis or another, without investigating the good
and bad patterns, is a source of trouble. That, unfortunately,
routinely happens in elementary (and some high school) materials.

If faces are 'flat regions' and 'edges' are straight lines, then a
cylinder has two faces, no edges, and there is not real purpose in the

If faces are regions, and edges are where two faces meet, then a
cylinder has three faces and two edges (no vertices). This still does
not seem to be a mathematically interesting description.

And it still does not really help with calculating surface area - you
need to cut it open as a net and make the tube into a rectangle. Then
you have formulae for the areas of faces, and you also happen to have
the three edges, three faces, and two vertices needed for the pattern
of Euler's formula. You still see, in the simple count, what the
overall topology is (the 2 tells you it is spherical and could be
redrawn, topologically, on a sphere).

I suspect that whatever answer this particular test expected, it is
based on a particular discussion in a particular text. I can show you
different materials with different answers, but seldom is there a
mathematical discussion. Some people have concluded that, as a result,
it is simply a bad idea (distracting without learning) to use the
words faces, vertices, edges for such objects. I do not quite agree -
but the only really useful context I know is the larger topology, and
you can see that this takes a larger understanding, something I only
learned at graduate school, and only teach in some upper level
undergraduate courses (courses most teachers have not taken).

Odds are this discussion in the source text or materials did NOT give
enough context to explain why one would bother with these words for
this object.

What is the MATHEMATICS one is trying to do!
That is where one needs to start.

Walter Whiteley

[P.S.  I write this in part because I am trying to have this
conversation with some textbook publishers for elementary materials,
and with some other curriculum sources for our schools. It IS an
important topic to make sense out of, and I look forward to other
contributions on the topic. Are there other ways to make mathematical
sense out of the choices?]

-----------------------------

Subject: Re: How Many Edges On  SOLID CYLINDER
Date:    Mon, 01 Apr 2002 17:47:21 -0500

I suppose it depends on what you define as an edge. I believe that
most math types would think of it as a straight line segment that is
the boundary of two polygonal faces; it runs between two vertices,
which are points where 3 polygonal faces meet. Now, since a cylinder
has no polygonal faces, then it has no edges at all.

That being said, many people not familiar with mathematical
terminology might indeed consider the boundaries of the two circles as
being edges. But that would not correspond to the normal mathematical
definitions of polyhedra, prisms, pyramids, and so on. A cone is not
the same thing as a pyramid, for example; a cylinder is not a prism.

On the other hand, one could think of the circular bases as being
polygons with an infinite number of sides. In that case, there would
be an infinite number of edges. But that would make the lateral,
curved, sides into no longer curved sides but an infinite number of
infinitely thin rectangles. Probably better not take that approach
unless you are trying to do calculus-type computations.

I am guessing that the expected answer was zero.

Guy Brandenburg

- Doctor Sarah, The Math Forum
http://mathforum.org/dr.math/

```
Associated Topics:
High School Definitions
High School Geometry
High School Higher-Dimensional Geometry
Middle School Definitions
Middle School Geometry
Middle School Higher-Dimensional Geometry

Search the Dr. Math Library:

 Find items containing (put spaces between keywords):   Click only once for faster results: [ Choose "whole words" when searching for a word like age.] all keywords, in any order at least one, that exact phrase parts of words whole words

Submit your own question to Dr. Math
Math Forum Home || Math Library || Quick Reference || Math Forum Search