User talk:Tomruen: Difference between revisions

P.s. I wonder why Bowers calls the rectified 24-cell a disicositetrachoron, and the snub 24-cell a snub disicositetrachoron? He also calls the rectified 5-cell a dispentachoron, double the cells of the 5-cell, but the truncations also double the cells. And anyway, I don't see how to get the snub 24-cell from the rectified 24-cell. Tom Ruen (talk) 02:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, where does Bowers use disicositetrachoron for the rectified {3,4,3}? On his website he gives rectified icositetrachoron, if I am not mistaken – I suspect because any truncation is going to double the cell count. In the cases where all the cells are congruent (the midpoint of bitruncation) he adds the prefixes and gets tetracontoctachoron.

I suspect that disicositetrachoron got used in the name of the snub 24-cell for convenience, for there it cannot mean anything but the original truncated 24-cell. After all, the snub 24-cell has 24 icosahedra (alternated truncated octahedra), 24 tetrahedra (alternated cubes), and 96 tetrahedra (these are the snub cells, filling in the gaps made from the deleted vertices): hence snub (96) + disicositetrachoron (2×24). That is consistent with the names like snub dodecadodecahedron in 3D, at least, although for consistency he really should use snub cuboctahedron and snub icosidodecahedron. (Along with hypothetical nonuniform snub prismatodecachoron, snub disprismatotesseractihexadecachoron, snub prismatotetracontoctachoron, and snub disprismatohexacosihecatonicosachoron.)

I wonder: does Johnson have any name for

(nonuniform)? Bowers does not seem to have one. I would expect Johnson to use runcic snub rectified 16-cell. Double sharp (talk) 06:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see George uses disicositetrachoron (#23=r{3,4,3}). Runcic snub rectified means one node is ringed beyond the snub, sr₃{3,4,3},

. In constrast sr{3,3,4} (Same as snub 24-cell!) =

is a snub rectified 16-cell but cantisnub 16-cell would be consistent since snub is an alternated truncation, versus alternated cantitruncation. So sr₃{3,3,4} could also be a runcic cantisnub 16-cell? Tom Ruen (talk) 06:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! I meant to ring the final node, creating s3s3s4x (

). Sorry for the mistake, but thanks for the naming suggestions. Does that make

a truncic tesseract (= r{4,3,3})? Double sharp (talk) 07:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson doesn't name h₁. And that's why I write

as a half symmetry operation, like [1+,2p]=[p],

=

, instead of

or

as an alternation, having no effect on the geometry. It's a half symmetry of the same figure, i.e.

. And more generally

=

, or by symmetry

=

, [1+,2p,3,3]=[(3,p,3),3]. Tom Ruen (talk) 07:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Maybe someday we'll say r{1+,4,3,3} for

, half symmetry form of r{4,3,3} for

? And you could also say {4,(3,3)*}={}⁴ = 1/24th symmetry form of tesseract? (Parallel to subgroup symmetry [4,(3,3)*] = []⁴, subgroup index 24,

=

) Tom Ruen (talk) 10:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infinite polygons

Hi Tom,

I am replying to your email here because my email system is currently a mess.

Sorry, I don't have a digital copy. There isn't even one on Branko's web site.

In the paper he identifies three types of regular "infinite polygon":

"Apeirogon", the subdivided straight line
"Zigzag", the plane, er, zigzag
"Helical polygon", a screw shape winding round an infinite prism-ish core.

But it is important to remember that Grünbaum's paper is forty years old, Coxeter's even older, and times have changed since then.

For example here is a link to a 2014 book using "apeirogon" for infinite polygons in general, and "straight apeirogon" for the original variety (near bottom of page): https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_n4eBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA331&lpg=PA331

mathworld also describes an "apeirogon" in the hyperbolic plane, which is none of the above.

We need to follow the terminology in these more recent sources.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, forgot to add:

The Generalized polygons of Tits are a rather different beast, more a class of configuration than a real polytope. Best to keep these ideas well separate.

Skew polygons is really just a descriptive term, it has relatively little mathematical significance. The helical apeirogons are skew, but the others described are not.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of regular polytopes and compounds

Tom, can I please ask you to take more care in sticking to WP:ETIQUETTE and remaining WP:CIVIL. it is a great discourtesy and is frowned upon, to edit another user's post - see WP:AVOIDABUSE. In such tendentious circumstances as we find ourselves in, it is important to take special care. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just read your email. My crustiness over the content is one thing, but I do try to remain civil and reasonable. You have gone too far the other way and yes, I do take that personally. You can take my post above as further comment on that. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my imprudent, impatient attempts helpfulness. I misread your reactions as joyful exuberance. Tom Ruen (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted. I will remain crusty over proper sourcing and presentation of the content. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox Solar eclipse2

Template:Infobox Solar eclipse2 has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox Solar eclipse. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015

Hello, I'm Ad Orientem. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Life Is Real Only Then, When 'I Am', but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. The article has no reliable sources. Please do not re-add material w/o proper citation to reliable independent sources. Ad Orientem (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The book exists, the author is notable. I don't see the problem. Tom Ruen (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is debatable. WP:V and WP:CITE are not. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So if I read a book, and write a summary, how does someone verify the accuracy of my summary? Tom Ruen (talk) 20:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is exactly correct. See WP:OR. Out of deference to WP:3RR I am not going to revert this again. However I am requesting that you do so. If you do not, I may have to request intervention from an Admin which I would rather not do. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Life Is Real Only Then, When 'I Am'. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ad Orientem (talk) 20:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing content without discussion. It is disrespectful to the person who took the time to write up the summary. Tom Ruen (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has been discussed. The article has no reliable sources which flatly contravenes WP:POLICY. I really don't know what more to say. I have posted links to guidelines and policy to which you seem to just be thumbing your nose. If reliable sources are not added and or the article is not reverted to its stubbed form I will take the matter to WP:ANI. I hope that will not be necessary. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please take the matter to WP:ANI or whomever you like. I don't understand what standards you see missing. Tom Ruen (talk) 20:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Life Is Real Only Then, When 'I Am'. - Mr X 20:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your right to remove material without discussion seems no greater value than my right to protect it. It takes two to edit war. Tom Ruen (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can't repeatedly add poorly sourced and unsourced material. Verifiability is policy. I strongly suggest that you stop readding this content or you will likely be blocked from editing for a while.- Mr X 20:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Life Is Real Only Then, When 'I Am' shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - Mr X 20:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The default state of a content conflict is no change, until the conflict is resolving. The person deleting summary material is the the one who is warring. Tom Ruen (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your continued insistence on adding material which clearly and so far as I can tell is in explicit violation of WP:V and WP:OR. It is incumbent on anyone who seeks to add material to meet [{WP:BURDEN]] requirements. If you cannot meet the requirements of WP:BURDEN, then you should not add the material. It is more than rude to continue to insist that violation of policies and guidelines is acceptable on your own. Please refrain from doing so again. John Carter (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, not only does it "take two to edit war" as you started earlier, but you're the one who's adding material that fails WP:Policy. If so many users are removing content that you alone are adding, why keep it up? We're already talking about it on the talk page.--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 21:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I care at all is because the deleting seems senseless. I can move it to a user page and see what I can find, if that would make you feel better? The integrity of wikipedia is under threat of unsanctioned summaries. But in the mean time we have a deletion request, which deserves the content to be maintained for evaluation. Tom Ruen (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2015

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Tomruen reported by User:Ad Orientem (Result: ). Thank you. Ad Orientem (talk) 21:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 21:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Solardb

Hi, I have been working on a lua version of template:Infobox Solar eclipse and template:Infobox Solar eclipse2 which is currently in Module:Solar eclipse and called by Template:Infobox Solar eclipse/sandbox. if you want to see an example of it in action, see this old revision. basically, it does the same thing as before, but with the database information stored in Special:PrefixIndex/Module:Solar eclipse/data (which were converted using a script from the "Template:SolareclipseNUM db" pages). while I was creating the module pages, I found some typos in the "Template:SolareclipseNUM db" templates, so it might be good to check them all?

Template:Solareclipse205 db has errors in 2094Jun13 and 2094Jul12
Template:Solareclipse210 db has errors in 2123Nov, 2129Feb, 2110Feb, 21Sep15, 21Mar22 (someone removed the 18s)
Template:Solareclipse225 db has errors in the Cat in 2288Feb02

is the NASA website the best source for the information? (e.g., http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEcat5/SE2101-2200.html). if so, I can use a script to verify all the data in the modules/templates. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The NASA website listing should be best. The Saros cycle grouping was chosen because each set was limited.[1] So the only updates might be recomputations on current event ones? On my template data, I remember, part of the large number of columns is to help give flexibility of output, so wonder if lua would allow more flexible reformatting so you could just do a direct transfer of data columns from the NASA list? Lastly, I don't 100% see what you've done, but it looks promising and superior. Tom Ruen (talk) 16:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yes, the nice thing about using lua is that you load in the entire line that corresponds to an eclipse, and then you can reformat/process it however you want. for example, if you compare Module:Solar eclipse/data/150 with Template:Solareclipse150 db using this link. the biggest improvement is the reduction in the size of the code since we don't need the YYYYMMDD prefix for each parameter, and we only need to specify the date in one format. the lua module can use the y, m, d, to generate the full date. as you mentioned, the ideal situation would be to be able to take the data table from the NASA website, and with minimal processing, generate the database pages. I believe this is possible, and will work on a script to do it automatically, which will allow us to find any errors in the database templates/modules. Frietjes (talk) 17:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tomruen: would you be interested in working on infoboxes for lunar eclipses? There is Template:Infobox lunar eclipse which is currently deployed on one article: June 2029 lunar eclipse. Also, what do you and Frietjes think about trying to transfer some of this data to Wikidata? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Martin. The new solar tables are good. Something like that is definitely good for lunar eclipses. Just needs to add p1,p4 times. Also I'm not sure if the earth globe fits into the table, at least the table can also show an eclipse photo for past events too. Anyway I'd like to help, but not sure when. Tom Ruen (talk) 13:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The module databases are good, but only benefit the English wikipedia. Getting them on to wikidata should be the eventual aim, if possible. I've proposed some needed properties at wikidata:Wikidata:Property proposal/Space, but I'm quite new to this. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some nets

I uploaded nets for some of the Conway polyhedron forms, like rectified truncated icosahedron, expanded icosidodecahedron, etc.

(I tried to recreate something that looked like your images, so in some cases had to try to spread the distortion of faces away from regularity over the whole polyhedron. So for my rtI net, the hexagons and pentagons are regular, but the triangles aren't – this looks like a very good near-miss Johnson solid, actually! This does mean that the dual is not geometrically equivalent to the rhombic enneacontahedron, but is still topologically the same.) Double sharp (talk) 06:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(How do you make btI and stI in Stella?) Double sharp (talk) 07:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! Yes, agree on rhombic enneacontahedron topology. I'd import polyhedra in Stella as OFF (file format). The Conway generator [2] exports Wavefront .obj file which is similar, but index from 1. Tom Ruen (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I managed to get stI without importing using some sneaky tricks: start with rtI and truncate it (giving a distorted btI). Then alternate the resulting btI (use faceting mode). Then try to make the faces regular (results in a nonconvex polyhedron), and then project it onto a sphere (makes it go back to being convex, with minimal distortion). Unfortunately, this doesn't work for btI, as attempting to project the result onto a sphere would produce skew polygonal faces. Double sharp (talk) 04:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:2 2k polytopes

Template:2 2k polytopes has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. JMHamo (talk) 23:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Euler characteristic

Wow! This is to compliment you on making those images for Euler characteristic so quickly. Wasn't expecting that. -- 108.122.99.20 (talk) 02:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I wasn't sure about the "torus faces", but I guessed. Tom Ruen (talk) 02:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Need help

Hi Tom.

I am not understanding Cuboctahedron having 6 Octahedrons (Double Square Pyramids) and 8 Tetrahedrons.

This is what I came up with dissecting a Cube: 1 Cuboctahedron and 8 Tetrahedrons.

http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/DissectionOfACubeIntoACuboctahedronAndAnOctahedron/

Can you confirm these calculations?

There is a cube of sides = 1. The Volume = 1.

Them we take take the mid points of the sides, and shave off the corners. What are left with is 1 Cuboctahedron. The sides of this are 1/root of 2. The volume of this comes to 0.833 approx.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Cuboctahedron.html.

From 8 Corners, we get 8 RegularTetrahedron. The base is equilateral and size of 1/root 2. And the slanted sides are of size 1/2. The volume of this comes to approx 0.167 for 8 of them (as per subtraction).

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/RegularTetrahedron.html

Now if "dissect" the Cuboctahedron, we can think of 6 Square Pyramids of side 1/root 2 and height of 1/2 - from its 6 faces. The volume of 6 of them comes to approx to 0.5! So the "remaing of Cuboctahedron" is approx 0.33 but the "remaining of "Cube minus Cuboctahedron " is 0.167 - half of 0.333 nearly.

So it points that the remaining "remaing of Cuboctahedron minus 6 Square Pyramid " has space left for 16 Tetrahedrons?

But I can only see 8 Tetrahedrons pointing inside, and they have to be 2 times the volume occupied by 8 Pointing outwards - which formed the corner of cubes. Thanks, Sunil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BC46:4750:BDD1:BBBC:9837:6133 (talk) 01:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I fully follow, but the cuboctahedron is related to the tetrahedron-octahedron honeycomb, dividing space into regular tets and octs, with square pyramids (of the cuboctahedron) being half regular octahedra. In constrast the 8 truncated corners from the cube are not regular tetrahedra. Tom Ruen (talk) 19:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of Platonic solids

Hi,

you revoked my revision because you found the presence of the two equivalent definitions confusing. You may be right, perhaps it is really confusing here. But I am sure, that this redundant definition is much more confusing, because it suggests, that regularity is a criterion independent from the others, but it isn't true. May I propose to change de definition simply to

In Euclidean geometry, a Platonic solid is a convex polyhedron with congruent faces of regular polygons and the same number of faces meeting at each vertex.

Regularity is an unnecessarily complicated thing here. However it is more generally applicable, that's why I kept it here in my revision. But perhaps it would be really better to mention it later. 89.135.19.75 (talk) 09:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 184: / Line 184: @@
 <blockquote>In Euclidean geometry, a Platonic solid is a convex polyhedron with congruent faces of regular polygons and the same number of faces meeting at each vertex.</blockquote>
-Regularity is an unnecessarily complicated thing here. However it is more generally applicable, that's why I kept it here in my revision. But perheps it would be really better to mention it later.
+Regularity is an unnecessarily complicated thing here. However it is more generally applicable, that's why I kept it here in my revision. But perhaps it would be really better to mention it later.
 [[Special:Contributions/89.135.19.75|89.135.19.75]] ([[User talk:89.135.19.75|talk]]) 09:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)