The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Volume of geodesic "sphere" (project)
Replies: 21   Last Post: Aug 15, 2001 3:09 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Brian Hutchings

Posts: 635
Registered: 12/6/04
Re: Volume of geodesic "sphere" (project)
Posted: May 1, 1998 7:15 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

In a previous article, (Robin Chapman) says:

oops; forgot alt.skeptics!... as for "triangled", yes,
that is a Buckyism, although I favor "trigonned" or "trigonated",
or wome thing better will arise. I mean,
the triangle is *special*, but why privileged to ungreek naming?

>But you still wrote a^2. How do you say this? a triangled?
>What about a^3?

the following is not a dysadvantage, so much as a lack
of practice with the "always complimentary space-filling
of tetrahedra & octahedra", or what ever Bucky saith. true,
the hexahedron (and the tetragon) is self-dual (ditto), but
that also happens to be related to the other lattice,
which Bucky calls the Isotrpic Vector Matrix (IVM),
for some reason o'be.

>Anyway there is a subtle disadvantage with using the regular tetrahedron
>as the model for measuring volume, as opposed to the cube and
>indeed either the equilateral triangle or the square for measuring area.
>One can estimate area of a plane figure, by superimposing a fine square grid
>and counting the number of little squares in your given figure. You
>can do the same with equilateral triangles. In three-dimensional space
>one can do the same with cubes, as we can tessellate space by cubes,
>BUT it is impossible to do the same with regular tetrahedra.

personally, I dyslike the quadray stuff, but
they may have done some neat-o things with it, by now (it seemeth)
or have gotten rid of some of the baggage o'hype. so,
how about "tripolar co-ordination" ??

>coordinate system for the problem at hand (Cartesian, affine, projective,
>trilinear, polar, spherical, etc.) while no doubt you as liberated from this
>sterile dogma are free to use quadray coordinates for any problem whatsoever.

I recall this dyscovery;
Gerald did it by type-and-error on his laptop,
somewhat mysteriously inducing Euler's old formula, although
in terms "normal" to Bucky, or precessional, he might have saith.

>It is misleading not to call them equivalent too.

oh; le'see.

>I presume the formula is something like the square (SORRY triangle) root
>of x^2 + y^2 + z^2 + u^2 - xy - xz - xu - yz - yu - zu which must be
>easier to work with than the Pythagorean expression: the square (no apology)
>root of x^2 + y^2 + z^2.

Fink Haplloyd maketh me puke!

>Weren't they some popular beat group? Did they have a donkey fixation
>(I thought it was pigs)?

member, African Civil Rights Movement -- extirpate retrocolonialism!
(No **** is good ****; eh?...
*---<Brian Hutchings, Living Space Programs, Santa Monica College>---*

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.