In a previous article, email@example.com (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.
>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)?