Jump to content

Talk:Net (polyhedron)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tessaract animation

[edit]

In response to questions on talk:tesseract, I made an animation of the tesseract net being folded and unfolded. If the editors here feel it would be useful, by all means link it at an appropriate place here. In tesseract, it was just linked from the image caption (not included as an image in the article itself). --Christopher Thomas 02:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify

[edit]

The text leaves a little room for misunderstanding. If you mark two points on a polyhedron, must there always be a way to unfold it into a single net that contains the entire shortest path between them? But I suppose that if you cannot prove that every polyhedron has a non-overlapping net, you cannot require that the net you use here is non-overlapping, making this (apparently) a fairly trivial question. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page Name and contents

[edit]

I wanted to make the article more dimension-neutral by changing the name to "Net (polytope)" and then rewriting it to be a more combined representation of it for all the higher and lower dimensional geometric constructs, but that page is already in use (as a redirect to this article, ironically). Can an administrator please delete the redirect so that I may redo the article? - MK (talk/contribs) 13:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although the page is still at the wrong place IMO, I've created pictures of the nets of all 64 uniform polychora that aren't part of the infinite sets of duoprimss and antiduoprisms. They're currently being uploaded onto Commons Wikipedia. Double sharp (talk) 07:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, along with the 4 known convex scaliforms (tutcup = s s'ox, prissi = ss'ox, bidex, spidrox). Double sharp (talk) 15:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some new facts, listed to expand in the future

[edit]

Just a reminder for someone who would like to expand this article in the future. Will give a list here:

Dedhert.Jr (talk) 10:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are no 15th-century dates on that page of that book; they are all 16th-century, and postdate Dürer, whom we already mention. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah. My mistake. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 10:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]