Bilbirothawroids (D4.3 to D4.9)

Discussion of known convex regular-faced polytopes, including the Johnson solids in 3D, and higher dimensions; and the discovery of new ones.

Re: Johnsonian Polytopes

Postby Marek14 » Sat Mar 08, 2014 4:31 pm

Well, one possibility is to have the inner-most rings that are not on a single torus. A simple case would be a ring of cupolas joined by their n-gons and 2n-gons (two basic forms are available, with ortho- and gyro- joins between the cupolae). After all, isn't the first J92 polychoron we found, which contains 4 J92's in a ring, something similar? Then you also get an additional degree of freedom: by having two different "joins" in the ring, the dichoral angle can be different for each.

BTW - is there a name for the shape you cut off (in two copies) from a 600-cell to get a gap?
Marek14
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1102
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 6:40 pm

Re: Johnsonian Polytopes

Postby Klitzing » Sat Mar 08, 2014 4:36 pm

quickfur wrote:
Klitzing wrote:I think you got the right feeling, quickfur, both with the relation of the 2 specific finds (according to my second idea) to sidpith and to stawros. But both weren't exact.
[...]
The important point here is for all that stuff to work: that the wedge angle of 2n-gon||n-p and that of n-gon||2n-p is the same!
[...]

Interesting! So I got 2n-gon||n-prism mixed up with n-gon||2n-prism. :P It's interesting that they have exactly the same wedge angle. It makes sense in retrospect, but it's not something I would've expected just from being told their structure.


The point here is that in the lace city you have a triangle ABB. And the base side BB is unity (as the base represents a prism) and the lacing element represents a cupolae - in either of both directions. Thus AB would have the same length in both cases. - That's all. 8)
--- rk
Klitzing
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1403
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 11:16 am
Location: Heidenheim, Germany

Re: Johnsonian Polytopes

Postby Klitzing » Sat Mar 08, 2014 5:17 pm

quickfur wrote:More thoughts about CRFs with duoprismic symmetry: suppose you have a polychoron with a ring of n-prisms and an orthogonal ring of m-prisms, with some lacing edges between them. I'm thinking that if the polychoron is CRF, then it must correspond with some augmentation of some underlying m/d,n/e-duoprism...

Not in that generality, but in my today discussed 2 cases I already ponted that out:
You take some tower of prisms, glue some shapes onto its sides, bend that into 4D, and if you're lucky, the outer shape again displays only squares. Thus this torus of squares would correspond to the supporting duoprism (having been provided explicitely in the discussed cases). And those prisms of this very duoprism, which are parallel to the starting ones of that original tower, then will be the augmented ones.


But, btw., a thing looks surprising so:
When I made a lace city display of some polytope from 4D and above so far, then always the representations of the perp space components at some para space position would have themselves a smaller circumradius, when laying farer out. But here this is not the case, so. Instead rather to the contrary, cf. e.g.:
Klitzing wrote:
Code: Select all
    x4x   x4x   
                 
x4x x4o   x4o x4x
                 
                 
x4x x4o   x4o x4x
                 
    x4x   x4x   


The perp space x4x clearly has a larger circumradius than the perp space x4o. But the para space position of those x4x here is farer out than that of the x4o. - Crude things happen!

--- rk
Klitzing
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1403
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 11:16 am
Location: Heidenheim, Germany

Re: Johnsonian Polytopes

Postby quickfur » Sat Mar 08, 2014 9:30 pm

Klitzing wrote:
quickfur wrote:More thoughts about CRFs with duoprismic symmetry: suppose you have a polychoron with a ring of n-prisms and an orthogonal ring of m-prisms, with some lacing edges between them. I'm thinking that if the polychoron is CRF, then it must correspond with some augmentation of some underlying m/d,n/e-duoprism...

Not in that generality, but in my today discussed 2 cases I already ponted that out:
You take some tower of prisms, glue some shapes onto its sides, bend that into 4D, and if you're lucky, the outer shape again displays only squares. Thus this torus of squares would correspond to the supporting duoprism (having been provided explicitely in the discussed cases). And those prisms of this very duoprism, which are parallel to the starting ones of that original tower, then will be the augmented ones.


But, btw., a thing looks surprising so:
When I made a lace city display of some polytope from 4D and above so far, then always the representations of the perp space components at some para space position would have themselves a smaller circumradius, when laying farer out. But here this is not the case, so. Instead rather to the contrary, cf. e.g.:
Klitzing wrote:
Code: Select all
    x4x   x4x   
                 
x4x x4o   x4o x4x
                 
                 
x4x x4o   x4o x4x
                 
    x4x   x4x   


The perp space x4x clearly has a larger circumradius than the perp space x4o. But the para space position of those x4x here is farer out than that of the x4o. - Crude things happen!

--- rk

Actually, this makes me wonder if this particular polychoron is non-convex. I failed to account for this possibility in my analysis.
quickfur
Pentonian
 
Posts: 2491
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 11:20 pm
Location: The Great White North

Re: Johnsonian Polytopes

Postby quickfur » Sat Mar 08, 2014 9:39 pm

Marek14 wrote:Well, one possibility is to have the inner-most rings that are not on a single torus. A simple case would be a ring of cupolas joined by their n-gons and 2n-gons (two basic forms are available, with ortho- and gyro- joins between the cupolae). After all, isn't the first J92 polychoron we found, which contains 4 J92's in a ring, something similar? Then you also get an additional degree of freedom: by having two different "joins" in the ring, the dichoral angle can be different for each.

BTW - is there a name for the shape you cut off (in two copies) from a 600-cell to get a gap?

In terms of coordinates, it's just deleting two great circles of vertices from the 600-cell, but geometrically speaking, it's deleting two rings of alternating pentagonal antiprism pyramids and 5-pyramid pyramids (ie., wedge made from two pentagonal pyramids). Interestingly enough, now that I think about this, here's another example of bridged augments that are CRF! You could think of the 600-cell as a gap augmented with pentagonal antiprism pyramids, which makes the result non-convex, but made convex again by inserting bridging augments in the shape of 5-pyramid wedges.

This suggests that perhaps non-trivial duoprismic CRFs are possible with heterogenous rings...
quickfur
Pentonian
 
Posts: 2491
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 11:20 pm
Location: The Great White North

Re: Johnsonian Polytopes

Postby student91 » Sun Mar 09, 2014 8:56 pm

Wow, you guys typed a lot when I was away.

Anyway, let's talk about this:
quickfur wrote:[...]

This suggests that perhaps non-trivial duoprismic CRFs are possible with heterogenous rings...

I like the Idea of heterogenous rings as well. (In fact, I've thought about it earlier). first note that the gap has a lace-city:
Code: Select all
                        o5x                       
                                                   
            x5o                     x5o           

                        f5o                       
                 o5f           o5f                 
                                                   
     o5x                                   o5x     
            f5o                     f5o           
                                                   

                                                   
            o5f                     o5f           
     x5o                                   x5o     
                                                   
                 f5o           f5o                 
                        o5f                       

            o5x                     o5x           
                                                   
                        x5o                       

This is just the lace-city of ex, with a x5x and 10 o5o's removed. You can see one ring of pentagonal antiprisms is made by x5o's and o5x's, and the other ring is made by alternating f5o's and o5f's. I would like to search for CRF's that have a lace-city display, because they're easier to discover. (they are the "soft" crown jewels).
Now a heterogenous ring that has both ways of representation in a lace-city (both something like f5o's and something like x5o's) is a ring made of pentagonal prisms and antiprisms, alternated. The f5o-like city would then look like F5x and x5F alternated in the same way as before. (I think you can in fact just leave whole that part of the lace-city alive, and just change the nodes, h( of5fo&#xt ) seems to equal h( Fx5xF&#xt ).)
The o5x-like ring would look like x5o and o5x alternated differently, namely as x5o x5o o5x o5x x5o x5o etc. with a total of 10 o5x's and 10 x5o's. this thing would clearly become bigger that the original ring of o5x's and x5o's this means that between those rings some place will occur for intermediate lacing vertices, and we might be able to close it up.

I just realized that the insertion of pentagonal prisms corresponds to a stott-expansion. As a consequence, the above-described thing can be closed up by using the lace-city of rox:
Code: Select all
                                    x5o             x5o                                   
                                            o5f                                           
                        o5x                                     o5x                       
                                x5x                     x5x                               
                                                                                           
                    f5o                     x5f                     f5o                   
            o5x                     F5o             F5o                     o5x           
                                o5F                     o5F                               
                        f5x                                     f5x                       
                                                                                           
            x5x                     f5f             f5f                     x5x           
    x5o             o5F                     V5o                     o5F             x5o   
                                                                                           
                F5o             o5V                     o5V             F5o               
                        f5f                                     f5f                       
    o5f                                     x5F                                     o5f   
            x5f                     F5x             F5x                     x5f           
                                                                                           
x5o                     V5o                                     V5o                     x5o
                                x5F                     x5F                               
            F5o                                                             F5o           
    x5x             f5f                                             f5f             x5x   
            o5F                                                             o5F           
                                F5x                     F5x                               
o5x                     o5V                                     o5V                     o5x
                                                                                           
            f5x                     x5F             x5F                     f5x           
    f5o                                     F5x                                     f5o   
                        f5f                                     f5f                       
                o5F             V5o                     V5o             o5F               
                                                                                           
    o5x             F5o                     o5V                     F5o             o5x   
            x5x                     f5f             f5f                     x5x           
                                                                                           
                        x5f                                     x5f                       
                                F5o                     F5o                               
            x5o                     o5F             o5F                     x5o           
                    o5f                     f5x                     o5f                   
                                                                                           
                                x5x                     x5x                               
                        x5o                                     x5o                       
                                            f5o                                           
                                    o5x             o5x                                   

This CRF is really soft, it's just a diminishing of a uniform. Therefore, it won't be a CJ. Nevertheless I think it's interesting anyways.
How easily one gives his confidence to persons who know how to give themselves the appearance of more knowledge, when this knowledge has been drawn from a foreign source.
-Stern/Multatuli/Eduard Douwes Dekker
student91
Tetronian
 
Posts: 320
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2013 3:41 pm

Re: Johnsonian Polytopes

Postby student91 » Sun Mar 09, 2014 10:27 pm

quickfur wrote:
student91 wrote:
[...]
I think there are other ways to close it up, just found a new one (I hope): (whatever)|| o3F3o || x3x3f || F3o3x || x3f3x || o3x3x. let's hope it works :) :\ :)
(for whatever you can either use o3x3x or f3x3o || x3o3o.)

That should be the third thing you're talking about (in fact there are two, because you can insert two "whatevers". the one with o3x3x should be the most interesting, as it has two sets of thawro's :D )

Unfortunately, this tower is non-CRF. The x3f3x layer overhangs the F3o3x, so there are non-CRF lacing edges from x3x3f to x3f3x (edge length 1/phi). :( (Unless I made a mistake again.... it's rather late and I'm not thinking very clearly... but I did check the difference in coordinates between F3o3x and x3f3x, they are all unit edges, but x3x3f to x3f3x has 1/phi edges. :( )


oops, that's due to an error of mine, :oops: the height between F3o3x and x3f3x should've been sqrt(1/8)/phi instead of sqrt(1/8)/(phi^2). This is fixed by using x3f3o instead of x3f3x. This gives (whatever) || o3F3o || x3x3f || F3o3x || x3f3o || o3x3o. This time it should work. :)
How easily one gives his confidence to persons who know how to give themselves the appearance of more knowledge, when this knowledge has been drawn from a foreign source.
-Stern/Multatuli/Eduard Douwes Dekker
student91
Tetronian
 
Posts: 320
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2013 3:41 pm

Re: Johnsonian Polytopes

Postby student5 » Sun Mar 09, 2014 10:47 pm

hello everybody!

I have been thinking about quickfur's polytope which led to mine, and have found something quite interesting:
look at the lace tower of CJ4.8.2; oxFxoo3xooxFx3ofxfox&#xt the first tower consists of octahedra and triangular cupolae (o3x||x3o, x3o||x3x and x3x||o3x with faces touching each other). the interesting thing about these is, that they have their 4- and 5-fold symmetry equivalents being antiprisms and cupolae, thus the same lace tower could work in another symetry group, then being oxFxoo4xooxFx3ofxfox&#xt or oxFxoo5xooxFx3ofxfox&#xt

oxFxoo4xooxFx3ofxfox&#xt doesn't work, because the lacing height of -x4o3-v, the distance for the cupolae touching the truncated oct is unreal, oxFxox4xooxFx3ofxfox&#xt doesn't work aswell, (x4-f3f)+(o4f-x) is not (-x4o3-v)

oxFxoo5xooxFx3ofxfox&#xt or oxFxox4xooxFx3ofxfox&#xt might still work however, it seems more promising because pentagons occur more often in id-symetry, so...
oxFxoo5xooxFx3ofxfox&#xt isn't because (o5f3-x) is unreal and oxFxox4xooxFx3ofxfox&#xt is partly D4.5.3, but doesn't work either because f5o3-v is unreal :sweatdrop:

I haven't found anything, guess February is over or something, but I did find out how incredibly lucky CJ4.8.2 was :]

I'm sorry to have posted this rather useless information, :oops: but now you know where not to search :roll:
student5
Dionian
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2014 2:48 pm

Re: Johnsonian Polytopes

Postby student5 » Sun Mar 09, 2014 11:57 pm

I've found something else which turned out to be nothing (please tell me if it is useless to share my failed attempts)

the lace tower oxox5xofx3xFxo&#xt looked quite promising, all it's lacings were real, but the dichoral angles were different. :oops:

has it occured that there is no (small) TB centered on a truncated icosahedron, it might just be possible another way... :roll:
student5
Dionian
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2014 2:48 pm

Re: Johnsonian Polytopes

Postby quickfur » Mon Mar 10, 2014 4:31 am

student91 wrote:
quickfur wrote:
student91 wrote:
[...]
I think there are other ways to close it up, just found a new one (I hope): (whatever)|| o3F3o || x3x3f || F3o3x || x3f3x || o3x3x. let's hope it works :) :\ :)
(for whatever you can either use o3x3x or f3x3o || x3o3o.)

That should be the third thing you're talking about (in fact there are two, because you can insert two "whatevers". the one with o3x3x should be the most interesting, as it has two sets of thawro's :D )

Unfortunately, this tower is non-CRF. The x3f3x layer overhangs the F3o3x, so there are non-CRF lacing edges from x3x3f to x3f3x (edge length 1/phi). :( (Unless I made a mistake again.... it's rather late and I'm not thinking very clearly... but I did check the difference in coordinates between F3o3x and x3f3x, they are all unit edges, but x3x3f to x3f3x has 1/phi edges. :( )


oops, that's due to an error of mine, :oops: the height between F3o3x and x3f3x should've been sqrt(1/8)/phi instead of sqrt(1/8)/(phi^2). This is fixed by using x3f3o instead of x3f3x. This gives (whatever) || o3F3o || x3x3f || F3o3x || x3f3o || o3x3o. This time it should work. :)

Hooray! Your corrected lace tower is indeed CRF! Here's a render of it, centered on the o3x3o:

Image

It shows a rather interesting formation of pentagonal pyramids straddled by a pair of square pyramids between the square faces of the J92's. There are, of course, 4 J92's around the central octahedron, and so if we put x3o3o || f3x3o on the other side, we get a tetrahedral-symmetry CRF containing 8 J92's. In that case, the pairs of pentagonal pyramids on this side of the CRF will join with corresponding pairs of pentagonal pyramids on the other side, forming an interesting configuration of two pairs of pentagonal pyramids straddling a pair of square pyramids. Most fascinating!

EDIT: assigned D4.8.3 to this CRF. The software model files can be found on that page.

EDIT 2: this means that we now have four CRFs in the D4.8 class, because this particular lace tower can be attached to two different other halves, and vice versa. For simplicity of description, let's define A1 = tetrahedron + 4 J92's, found in the original D4.8, and B1 = octahedron + 4 J91's, found on the other side of the original D4.8. Let A2 = truncated tetrahedron + 4 (inverted) J92's found in D4.8.2, as discovered by student5, and B2 = octahedron + 4 J92's, as described by student91 here. The A's and B's have matching boundaries in the shape of that skew polyhedron that I discovered (whose projection is the rectified near-miss #22), so either of the A's can be glued to either of the B's. So we have 4 combinations:

A1 + B1 = D4.8 (maybe this should be renamed to D4.8.1?)
A2 + B1 = D4.8.2
A1 + B2 = D4.8.3
A2 + B2 = (currently unassigned: maybe assigning this to D4.8.4 would not be amiss?)

What I find most fascinating about this, is that the joining boundary of these pieces is non-planar (non-corealmar), yet there exist multiple cell configurations that exhibit the same boundary, thus leading to these combinatorial possibilities!

EDIT 3: here's a slightly better render, with the tridiminished icosahedra rendered in green so that the J92's are easier to pick out visually:

Image
quickfur
Pentonian
 
Posts: 2491
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 11:20 pm
Location: The Great White North

Re: Johnsonian Polytopes

Postby Marek14 » Mon Mar 10, 2014 7:09 am

quickfur: Yes, reminds me of an egg broken in two irregular patches of shell which nevertheless fit perfectly together.
Marek14
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1102
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 6:40 pm

Re: Johnsonian Polytopes

Postby Keiji » Mon Mar 10, 2014 7:46 am

quickfur wrote: D4.8 (maybe this should be renamed to D4.8.1?)


Done, and while we're renumbering discovery indices, can we shift the D4.9's up by one, so D4.9.0 becomes D4.9.1, D4.9.1 becomes D4.9.2 and D4.9.2 becomes D4.9.3? Not really a fan of having that .0 there. ;) Hopefully it won't have too much impact given that they don't have wiki pages yet.
User avatar
Keiji
Administrator
 
Posts: 1962
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2003 6:33 pm
Location: Torquay, England

Re: Johnsonian Polytopes

Postby Marek14 » Mon Mar 10, 2014 8:25 am

I'd suggest modifying the definition of "augmented" a bit -- wiki says that augmentation is done with pyramids, but even in 3D you have Johnson solids which are augmented with cupolas (augmented truncated cube, for example).

EDIT: D4.6's page doesn't mention perhaps the most interesting cell it has -- 24 pentagonal orthocupolarotundas.
Marek14
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1102
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 6:40 pm

Re: Johnsonian Polytopes

Postby quickfur » Mon Mar 10, 2014 3:05 pm

Keiji wrote:
quickfur wrote: D4.8 (maybe this should be renamed to D4.8.1?)


Done, and while we're renumbering discovery indices, can we shift the D4.9's up by one, so D4.9.0 becomes D4.9.1, D4.9.1 becomes D4.9.2 and D4.9.2 becomes D4.9.3? Not really a fan of having that .0 there. ;) Hopefully it won't have too much impact given that they don't have wiki pages yet.

It was numbered .0 because it does not actually have any bilbiro or thawro cells, so it doesn't fit very well with the current definition of BT polytopes. Arguably, the definition of BT polytopes is a bit arbitrary... we should be basing the classification on the operations used to derive these things, rather than the occurrence of bilbiro or thawro cells, which is only incidental, not fundamental. Case in point, D4.4 arguably doesn't really belong in this category, because it isn't obvious how it is derived from any existing uniform polychora by the "bilbiro-ing" and "thawro-ing" operations, so it seems to stand apart from the others it's currently lumped with.

I'm not against renumbering, though, but if we're going to do that, we'll need to fix the references to those numbers in previous posts in this thread, otherwise we will lose referential consistency for when we come back to read this thread in the future.
quickfur
Pentonian
 
Posts: 2491
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 11:20 pm
Location: The Great White North

Re: Johnsonian Polytopes

Postby quickfur » Mon Mar 10, 2014 3:08 pm

Marek14 wrote:I'd suggest modifying the definition of "augmented" a bit -- wiki says that augmentation is done with pyramids, but even in 3D you have Johnson solids which are augmented with cupolas (augmented truncated cube, for example).

Speaking of which, I think it's high time we looked at the augmentations of 2m,2n-duoprisms with 2m-prism||m-gon's and 2n-prism||n-gon's. We should write a script for enumerating these things and see if we get the same results? :)

EDIT: D4.6's page doesn't mention perhaps the most interesting cell it has -- 24 pentagonal orthocupolarotundas.

What, really? Where do they occur?
quickfur
Pentonian
 
Posts: 2491
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 11:20 pm
Location: The Great White North

Re: Johnsonian Polytopes

Postby student91 » Mon Mar 10, 2014 3:27 pm

quickfur wrote:[...]
EDIT: D4.6's page doesn't mention perhaps the most interesting cell it has -- 24 pentagonal orthocupolarotundas.

What, really? Where do they occur?

After thinking a bit, I concluded marek was right, the pentagonla cupola's and the half id's are at an 180 degrees dichoral angle, making them fuse together, resulting in orthocupolarotunda's!! that's indeed really cool.

the pentagonal cupola's that are inserted with the pentagonal prisms, are part of an x3x3o5x. this means those cupola's are comparable with the hemiated id's, and thus the rotunda and the cupola are comparably aligned, making them fuse together :D :D .
How easily one gives his confidence to persons who know how to give themselves the appearance of more knowledge, when this knowledge has been drawn from a foreign source.
-Stern/Multatuli/Eduard Douwes Dekker
student91
Tetronian
 
Posts: 320
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2013 3:41 pm

Re: Johnsonian Polytopes

Postby Marek14 » Mon Mar 10, 2014 4:51 pm

Let's have a look at this polychoron with Stella data.

It has 10 shapes of cells, further subdivided into 19 distinct types.

1. Pentagonal prisms A (mid-layer). 12. 5-fold dihedral symmetry.
Pentagons joined to pentagonal orthocupolarotundas.
Squares joined to hexagonal prisms.

2. Pentagonal prisms B. 120. Reflection symmetry.
One pentagon joined to a bilbro.
Other pentagon joined to a icosidodecahedron.
Two adjacent squares joined to cuboctahedra A.
Two squares adjacent to them joined to triangular cupolas B.
Fifth square adjacent to a triangular cupola A.

3. Pentagonal prisms C. 120. Reflection symmetry.
One pentagon joined to a icosidodecahedron.
Other pentagon joined to a pentagonal rotunda.
Two adjacent squares joined to cuboctahedra B.
Two squares adjacent to them joined to cuboctahedra C.
Fifth square adjacent to a triangular cupola C.

4. Pentagonal prisms D. 24. 5-fold pyramidal symmetry.
One pentagon joined to a pentagonal rotunda.
Other pentagon joined to a pentagonal orthocupolarotunda.
Squares joined to cuboctahedra B.

5. Pentagonal prisms E. 120. Reflection symmetry.
One pentagon joined to a icosidodecahedron.
Other pentagon joined to a pentagonal orthocupolarotunda.
Two adjacent squares joined to cuboctahedra B.
Two squares adjacent to them joined to cuboctahedra A.
Fifth square joined to a triangular cupola B.

6. Pentagonal prisms F. 60. 2-fold pyramidal symmetry.
Pentagons joined to icosidodecahedra.
Two adjacent squares joined to cuboctahedra A.
Two squares adjacent to them joined to cuboctahedra B.
Fifth square joined to a cuboctahedron C.

7. Triangular cupola A. 40. 3-fold pyramidal symmetry.
Hexagon joined to another triangular cupola A.
Squares joined to pentagonal prisms B.
Lateral triangles joined to triangular cupolas B.
Top triangle joined to an icosidodecahedron.

8. Triangular cupola B. 120. Reflection symmetry.
Hexagon joined to a truncated tetrahedron.
Two squares joined to pentagonal prisms B.
Third square joined to a pentagonal prism E.
One lateral triangle between two "pentagonal prism B" squares joined to a triangular cupola A.
Two remaining lateral triangles joined to cuboctahedra A.
Top triangle joined to an icosidodecahedron.

9. Triangular cupola C. 40. 3-fold pyramidal symmetry.
Hexagon joined to a great icosidodecahedron.
Squares joined to pentagonal prisms C.
Lateral triangles joined to cuboctahedra C.
Top triangle joined to an icosidodecahedron.

10. Truncated tetrahedron. 60. 2-fold pyramidal symmetry.
Two hexagons joined to hexagonal prisms.
Other two hexagons joined to triangular cupolas B.
Triangles adjacent to two "hexagonal prism" hexagons joined to pentagonal orthocupolarotundas.
Triangles adjacent to two "triangular cupola B" hexagons joined to bilbros.

11. Hexagonal prism. 60. 2-fold pyramidal symmetry.
Hexagons joined to truncated tetrahedra.
One square joined to a pentagonal prism A.
Two squares adjacent to it joined to pentagonal orthocupolarotundas.
Two squares adjacent to those joined to cuboctahedra A.
Sixth square joined to a bilbro.

12. Cuboctahedron A. 120. Reflection symmetry.
Two adjacent squares joined to pentagonal prisms B.
Two squares that form a ring with them joined to pentagonal prisms E.
Fifth square joined to a pentagonal prism F.
Sixth square cross from it joined to a hexagonal prism.
Two triangles adjacent to "pentagonal prism B", "pentagonal prism E" and "pentagonal prism F" squares joined to an icosidodecahedron.
Two triangles adjacent to "pentagonal prism B", "pentagonal prism E" and "hexagonal prism" squares joined to a triangular cupola B.
A triangle adjacent to two "pentagonal prism B" squares and the "pentagonal prism F" square joined to another cuboctahedron A.
A triangle adjacent to two "pentagonal prism B" squares and the "hexagonal prism" square joined to a bilbro.
A triangle adjacent to two "pentagonal prism E" squares and the "pentagonal prism F" square joined to a cuboctahedron B.
A triangle adjacent to two "pentagonal prism E" squares and the "hexagonal prism" square joined to a pentagonal orthocupolarotunda.

13. Cuboctahedron B. 120. Reflection symmetry.
Two adjacent squares joined to pentagonal prisms C.
Two squares that form a ring with them joined to pentagonal prisms E.
Fifth square joined to a pentagonal prism D.
Sixth square cross from it joined to a pentagonal prism F.
Two triangles adjacent to "pentagonal prism C", "pentagonal prism E" and "pentagonal prism D" squares joined to other cuboctahedra B.
Two triangles adjacent to "pentagonal prism C", "pentagonal prism E" and "pentagonal prism F" squares joined to icosidodecahedra.
A triangle adjacent to two "pentagonal prism C" squares and the "pentagonal prism D" square joined to a pentagonal rotunda.
A triangle adjacent to two "pentagonal prism C" squares and the "pentagonal prism F" square joined to a cuboctahedron C.
A triangle adjacent to two "pentagonal prism E" squares and the "pentagonal prism D" square joined to a pentagonal orthocupolarotunda.
A triangle adjacent to two "pentagonal prism E" squares and the "pentagonal prism F" square joined to a cuboctahedron A.

14. Cuboctahedron C. 60. 2-fold pyramidal symmetry.
A ring of four squares joined to pentagonal prisms C.
Fifth square joined to a pentagonal prism F.
Sixth square across from it joined to a great icosidodecahedron.
Two triangles adjacent to opposite sides of the "pentagonal prism F" square joined to icosidodecahedra.
Two remaining triangles adjacent to the "pentagonal prism F" square joined to cuboctahedra B.
Two triangles adjacent to the "great icosidodecahedron" square, opposite the "icosidodecahedron" ones joined to triangular cupolas C.
Two triangles adjacent to the "great icosidodecahedron" square, opposite the "cuboctahedron B" ones joined to pentagonal rotundas.

15. Bilbro. 30. 2-fold dihedral symmetry.
Pentagons joined to pentagonal prisms B.
Squares joined to hexagonal prisms.
Rotunda triangles joined to cuboctahedra A.
Luna triangles joined to truncated tetrahedra.

16. Pentagonal rotunda. 24. 5-fold pyramidal symmetry.
Decagon joined to great icosidodecahedron.
Lateral pentagons joined to pentagonal prisms C.
Top pentagon joined to a pentagonal prism D.
Bottom triangles joined to cuboctahedra C.
Top triangles joined to cuboctahedra B.

17. Pentagonal orthocupolatorunda. 24. 5-fold pyramidal symmetry.
Cupola pentagon joined to a pentagonal prism A.
Rotunda lateral pentagons joined to pentagonal prisms E.
Rotunda top pentagon joined to a pentagonal prism D.
Squares joined to hexagonal prisms.
Cupola triangles joined to truncated tetrahedra.
Bottom rotunda triangles joined to cuboctahedra A.
Top rotunda triangles joined to cuboctahedra B.

18. Icosidodecahedron. 40. 3-fold pyramidal symmetry.
Three pentagons around "top" triangle joined to pentagonal prisms C.
Three pentagons in next layer joined to pentagonal prisms F.
Three pentagons in next layer joined to pentagonal prisms E.
Three pentagons around "bottom" triangle joined to pentagonal prisms B.
Top triangle joined to a triangular cupola C.
Three triangles adjacent to two "C" pentagons and one "F" pentagon joined to cuboctahedra C.
Six triangles adjacent to one "C" pentagon, one "F" pentagon and one "E" pentagon joined to cuboctahedra B.
Six triangles adjacent to one "F" pentagon, one "E" pentagon and one "B" pentagon joined to cuboctahedra A.
Three triangles adjacent to one "E" pentagon and two "B" pentagons joined to triangular cupolas B.
Bottom triangle joined to a triangular cupola A.

19. Great icosidodecahedron. 2. Icosahedral symmetry.
Decagons joined to pentagonal rotundas.
Hexagons joined to triangular cupolas C.
Squares joined to cuboctahedra C.

Important cycles:
Great icosidodecahedron -10- pentagonal rotunda -5- pentagonal prism D -5- pentagonal orthocupolarotunda -5- pentagonal prism A (quarter circle, mirror to get whole)
Great icosidodecahedron -6- triangular cupola C -3- icosidodecahedron -3- triangular cupola A -6- (quarter circle)
Great icosidodecahedron -4- cuboctahedron C -4- pentagonal prism F -edge- triangle between two cuboctahedra A -point- bilbro (quarter circle)
Marek14
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1102
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 6:40 pm

Re: Johnsonian Polytopes

Postby quickfur » Mon Mar 10, 2014 5:35 pm

student91 wrote:
quickfur wrote:[...]
EDIT: D4.6's page doesn't mention perhaps the most interesting cell it has -- 24 pentagonal orthocupolarotundas.

What, really? Where do they occur?

After thinking a bit, I concluded marek was right, the pentagonla cupola's and the half id's are at an 180 degrees dichoral angle, making them fuse together, resulting in orthocupolarotunda's!! that's indeed really cool.

the pentagonal cupola's that are inserted with the pentagonal prisms, are part of an x3x3o5x. this means those cupola's are comparable with the hemiated id's, and thus the rotunda and the cupola are comparably aligned, making them fuse together :D :D .

Whoa, you are right!! How did I miss this before? :oops: :P Your comments inspired me to go back to take a more careful look at this CRF. And indeed, there are pentagonal orthocupolarotunda cells!! (Which means I have to add the pentagonal orthocupolarotunda to my website too, since I plan to do renders of all of these CRFs some day. ;))

Image

The blue cells are pentagonal orthocupolarotundae. The red pentagons indicate where they touch the equatorial pentagonal prisms. The green cells are, of course, bilbiro's.

Here's a side-view that shows how these orthocupolarotunda attach north and south of the pentagonal prisms:

Image

This CRF just upped several notches of cool in my book. :mrgreen:
quickfur
Pentonian
 
Posts: 2491
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 11:20 pm
Location: The Great White North

Re: Johnsonian Polytopes

Postby wendy » Tue Mar 11, 2014 7:19 am

It kind of like looks like a goldfish bowl in this view
The dream you dream alone is only a dream
the dream we dream together is reality.
User avatar
wendy
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1834
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 12:42 pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Johnsonian Polytopes

Postby Klitzing » Tue Mar 11, 2014 7:38 am

wendy wrote:It kind of like looks like a goldfish bowl in this view

Not too surprising in view of its construction:
chopping off the poles of a spherical thing, and cutting out some equatorial stratum, with some further local structure change in that region...

Btw., quickfur, your new pics are fascinating as ever! Looks indeed like a gem, quite appealing, by highlighting all that special stuff. - Only that the normal parts inbetween, within my personal view, are too less visible. I'd like to have the edges at least to remain visible, in order to be at least somehow guided what shall be filled inbetween.

--- rk
Klitzing
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1403
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 11:16 am
Location: Heidenheim, Germany

Re: Johnsonian Polytopes

Postby quickfur » Tue Mar 11, 2014 3:00 pm

Klitzing wrote:
wendy wrote:It kind of like looks like a goldfish bowl in this view

Not too surprising in view of its construction:
chopping off the poles of a spherical thing, and cutting out some equatorial stratum, with some further local structure change in that region...

Btw., quickfur, your new pics are fascinating as ever! Looks indeed like a gem, quite appealing, by highlighting all that special stuff. - Only that the normal parts inbetween, within my personal view, are too less visible. I'd like to have the edges at least to remain visible, in order to be at least somehow guided what shall be filled inbetween.

--- rk

The problem with showing all the edges, is that there are too many of them. This is what it looks like:

Image

:P

Originally, when I first started rendering 4D polytopes, my dream was to show everything in one image, but it become obvious pretty soon that it won't work because of the clutter. That's what led me to do layer-by-layer renderings on my website; it's the only way to show the entire structure in a comprehensible way.
quickfur
Pentonian
 
Posts: 2491
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 11:20 pm
Location: The Great White North

Re: Johnsonian Polytopes

Postby Klitzing » Tue Mar 11, 2014 4:18 pm

quickfur wrote:The problem with showing all the edges, is that there are too many of them. ... :P

Originally, when I first started rendering 4D polytopes, my dream was to show everything in one image, but it become obvious pretty soon that it won't work because of the clutter. That's what led me to do layer-by-layer renderings on my website; it's the only way to show the entire structure in a comprehensible way.


I agree. It is a clutter. :(
And yes, your layer-by-layer approach is really educative! :nod:

:idea: But I got some idea for that point (and you would have to implement it, haha):
So far you display all edge as bold struts, and in that other pic you just omitted several edges - as those would become too dominant for being only guide lines for subordinate structures.
So what would you think about a 3-state logic for edges?
  • shown as struts (as in both of your pic versions - as far as those were displayed at all)
  • shown as mere thin lines (perhaps additionally with applicable coloring, so that you might can fade those out and in rather easily, just by adapting that color a bit)
  • not shown (as in the former pic in most cases)
--- rk
Klitzing
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1403
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 11:16 am
Location: Heidenheim, Germany

Re: Johnsonian Polytopes

Postby quickfur » Tue Mar 11, 2014 5:56 pm

Klitzing wrote:[...] :idea: But I got some idea for that point (and you would have to implement it, haha):
So far you display all edge as bold struts, and in that other pic you just omitted several edges - as those would become too dominant for being only guide lines for subordinate structures.
So what would you think about a 3-state logic for edges?
  • shown as struts (as in both of your pic versions - as far as those were displayed at all)
  • shown as mere thin lines (perhaps additionally with applicable coloring, so that you might can fade those out and in rather easily, just by adapting that color a bit)
  • not shown (as in the former pic in most cases)
--- rk

The renders are all done as povray 3D models, and the edges are basically thin cylinders (there's no way to only draw thin lines in povray; they must be 3D objects). They can be assigned different textures, though, and I've used that in the past (e.g. to highlight the outline of a cell that overlaps with other elements so that its faces don't obscure the rest of the image). I suppose I could use it more. :D It's not just a 3-state logic, it is n-state, since you can assign any texture to any edge. The tricky part comes from which texture to assign to which edges to make the resulting image clear, and this is usually not as straightforward as it looks.

Anyway, here's an attempt to use two different textures to show all edges:

Image

It's a little better than before, but the sheer number of edges still makes a big mess of it. The blue edges here are assigned a highly transparent texture in order to minimize their visual obstruction of the image. Originally, I tried to just use a solid color, but the result wasn't that much different from the previous image. Making them 90% transparent helped a little, but as you can see, there are simply too many of them, and they're still cluttering up the image. The transparency has also made them look like somebody scrawled all over the image with a blue marker. :P Worse yet, because they're now so transparent, it's almost impossible to discern individual edges except on the outer boundary of the projection, which isn't very helpful when you're trying to locate individual cells. Reducing the transparency only brings back the original clutter. :(

Basically, I've tried similar techniques before, but eventually my conclusion was that the only way to show the structure clearly is to show the elements layer-by-layer. When you highlight only a relatively small number of cells, it's possible to show everything together, but once the number of elements reaches a certain threshold, it just becomes an incomprehensible clutter, and no matter what you do, you just can't get around it. Now, if only we had a way to deliver 3D images directly to the brain, then we won't have this problem, but our 2D retinas are a big limitation here. :|
quickfur
Pentonian
 
Posts: 2491
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 11:20 pm
Location: The Great White North

Re: Johnsonian Polytopes

Postby student91 » Tue Mar 11, 2014 9:09 pm

quickfur wrote:
Keiji wrote:
quickfur wrote: D4.8 (maybe this should be renamed to D4.8.1?)


Done, and while we're renumbering discovery indices, can we shift the D4.9's up by one, so D4.9.0 becomes D4.9.1, D4.9.1 becomes D4.9.2 and D4.9.2 becomes D4.9.3? Not really a fan of having that .0 there. ;) Hopefully it won't have too much impact given that they don't have wiki pages yet.

It was numbered .0 because it does not actually have any bilbiro or thawro cells, so it doesn't fit very well with the current definition of BT polytopes. Arguably, the definition of BT polytopes is a bit arbitrary... we should be basing the classification on the operations used to derive these things, rather than the occurrence of bilbiro or thawro cells, which is only incidental, not fundamental. Case in point, D4.4 arguably doesn't really belong in this category, because it isn't obvious how it is derived from any existing uniform polychora by the "bilbiro-ing" and "thawro-ing" operations, so it seems to stand apart from the others it's currently lumped with.

I'm not against renumbering, though, but if we're going to do that, we'll need to fix the references to those numbers in previous posts in this thread, otherwise we will lose referential consistency for when we come back to read this thread in the future.


I fully agree on D4.4 not being a bilbirothawroid. I think we should make it CJ4.4 again. If it weren't a crown jewel, we wouldn't be consistent:
the wiki wrote:Crown jewels are a catch-all term for unusual CRF polytopes with unique structures that cannot be obtained from the uniform polytopes or other simpler CRFs by simple "cut-and-paste" operations.
D4.4 clearly can't be obtained by simple cut-n-paste operations. For the same reason, I think the D4.3, and the D4.8's may be reconsidered as well.
Furthermore I would pleat to use a naming scheme for the "left-over" bilbirothawriods with a following format:
[optional icosahedral/tetrahedral prefix] [polar/equatorial] [bilbiro'd/thawro'd] [whatever].
This format highly corresponds to your proposition of compression and pseudo-bisection. The difference is, that my format is specific for the cases where bilbiro's and thawro's occur, and yours doesn't have to do so. I like the specific approach, because this makes it more clear what the result is. Furthermore, an ("obvious") bilbiroing resp. thawroing can be done at exactly one place. This means there aren't any not-well-defined numbers needed. (I think making the number-prefixes will either yield big numbers or ambiguity) However, I'm still not happy with the verbs. maybe we can use compression and pseudo-bisection instead of bilbiro-ing resp thawroing? The icosahedral/tetrahedral prefix is optional because so far we haven't found any tetrahedral bilbiroing resp. thawroing that leaves most of the original intact. Therefore, such a prefix won't be needed when we don't find any tetrahedral things with this property. polar/equatorial is only needed when you are thawro-ing. because the ("obvious") thawroing has a well-defined location, it only needs a side. again, the terms "polar" and "equatorial" can be changed. finally the whatever is the thing that is thawro'd/bilbiro'd.

the D4.9.x-things are numbered that way, because I saw D4.9.0 as the "basic" thing. Just as with an update, the "basic" thing doesn't get a number, or a .0 The further derivatives ("patches" when speaking about updates :) )get a corresponding postfixed number. In my proposed format I would suggest we call D4.9.0 the polar thawro'd o3x3o5o, and then the 4.9.x's are called octahedral diminished polar thawro'd o3x3o5o, pentagonal antiprismatically diminished polar thawro'd o3x3o5o etc. To these proposed names the following applies as well:
quickfur wrote:I know this nomenclature is still a bit rough around the edges, so suggestions for improvements are welcome,

. Point is that I mostly agree with quickfur about his naming convention, with the difference that I would rather like specific operations rather that global ones.
How easily one gives his confidence to persons who know how to give themselves the appearance of more knowledge, when this knowledge has been drawn from a foreign source.
-Stern/Multatuli/Eduard Douwes Dekker
student91
Tetronian
 
Posts: 320
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2013 3:41 pm

Previous

Return to CRF Polytopes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests