This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Is it just my browser, or does anyone else see the animated image partially hidden behind the octahedron which is attached to the sidebar? 69.109.59.250 ( talk) 15:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Multiple tables don't always format well, so they could overlap on lower resolution screens. I reduced the image table width, maybe that'll help? Tom Ruen ( talk) 17:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The image of the 16-cell rotating about two orthogonal planes is inaccurate. The octahedral hull of the projection of the object into three-dimensional space should deform such that two of the vertices come sqrt(2)/2 times as far apart as in a regular octahedron when the two interior vertices reach their furthest apart points. I have an I.Q. of 129 and have personally visualized the polychoron rotating in four-dimensional space and being projected into three-dimensional space, and the last time I attempted to explain this mistake, my comment was ignored and deleted. I would imagine that changing the actual image would be difficult, but I would like my verbal description of the mistake to stay here instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.43.145 ( talk) 01:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Should the article mention somewhere that the skeleton (graph) of the 16-cell is K2,2,2,2? Maproom ( talk) 19:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I know a different type of 16-cell which would fit better as a 4-dimensional octahedron than the one used for this page's picture. It's the one in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJS-otOupbo -- 2602:306:CE62:8430:C968:7318:825C:86C0 ( talk) 19:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
What shape are the cells? It would be good if we were told in the first line. Presumably tetrahedra. NaumTered 23:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norm Tered ( talk • contribs)
The current structure with notes referring to other notes referring to other notes is extremely difficult to read. It also seems like a much higher than desirable percentage of the prose in this article is stuffed into notes for some reason. -- Fyrael ( talk) 23:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Is it just my browser, or does anyone else see the animated image partially hidden behind the octahedron which is attached to the sidebar? 69.109.59.250 ( talk) 15:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Multiple tables don't always format well, so they could overlap on lower resolution screens. I reduced the image table width, maybe that'll help? Tom Ruen ( talk) 17:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The image of the 16-cell rotating about two orthogonal planes is inaccurate. The octahedral hull of the projection of the object into three-dimensional space should deform such that two of the vertices come sqrt(2)/2 times as far apart as in a regular octahedron when the two interior vertices reach their furthest apart points. I have an I.Q. of 129 and have personally visualized the polychoron rotating in four-dimensional space and being projected into three-dimensional space, and the last time I attempted to explain this mistake, my comment was ignored and deleted. I would imagine that changing the actual image would be difficult, but I would like my verbal description of the mistake to stay here instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.43.145 ( talk) 01:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Should the article mention somewhere that the skeleton (graph) of the 16-cell is K2,2,2,2? Maproom ( talk) 19:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I know a different type of 16-cell which would fit better as a 4-dimensional octahedron than the one used for this page's picture. It's the one in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJS-otOupbo -- 2602:306:CE62:8430:C968:7318:825C:86C0 ( talk) 19:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
What shape are the cells? It would be good if we were told in the first line. Presumably tetrahedra. NaumTered 23:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norm Tered ( talk • contribs)
The current structure with notes referring to other notes referring to other notes is extremely difficult to read. It also seems like a much higher than desirable percentage of the prose in this article is stuffed into notes for some reason. -- Fyrael ( talk) 23:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)