You've been invited to be part of WikiProject Cosmology | |
Hello. Your contributions to Wikipedia have been analyzed carefully and you're among the few chosen to have a first access to a new project. I hope you can contribute to it by expanding the main page and later start editing the articles in its scope. Make sure to check out the Talk page for more information! Cheers Tetra quark ( talk) 19:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC) |
Hi, Im new to wikipedia and just looking around I noticed you have really amazing. I was looking at this page User:Tomruen/Geodestic_sphere and i was wondering if there was a 2d Net somewhere for those shapes. Like someone thing you could theoretically print out on a piece of paper and then fold into those shapes. — also I was wondering what program you were using to make those images.—thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jooe15 ( talk • contribs) 02:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jooe15, Thanks! Most I didn't do but I have software to make nets. This [1] Free webpage generates polyhedra, and OBJ export. And not-free Stella (software) can draw nets of imported polyhedra. Which one are you interested in. Conway polyhedron notation is given on many at Goldberg polyhedron and Capsid. Tom Ruen ( talk) 03:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Tom, you are plastering references to Johnson, Geometries and transformations (2015) across Wikipedia as fast as you can type. At present I can find no reference at all to this publication elsewhere, not Google, not Amazon, nada, zilch. There are just the old few references to the draft MS he circulated some years ago. What is your basis for all this? If it doesn't appear ASAP, you will have made a handsome mess. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 10:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I decided to drop you a message to make sure you check out the first task of the cosmology project: Help improve the Universe. Please feel free to remove this message after you read it :) Tetra quark ( talk) 03:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
It works with cantellation too! [2] ;-) Double sharp ( talk) 07:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, how's this?
It would be better with a few more intermediate cases, though. Double sharp ( talk) 11:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
It looks very nice, but we have no sources besides Bowers who uses his own terminology. Tom Ruen ( talk) 11:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Tomruen, do you know any way to make pictures for cases like ht0,1,2,3{4,3,3}? Double sharp ( talk) 13:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello! I'm Daria from Russia. I'm very sorry, but I heve some difficaltes with translation into English some terms and wordings conected with chasles theorem, affine motions of plane turn, glide reflection, symmetry,rotational movement... Maybe you know some good webside about that topic? I can't find a good one. Could you help me, please? My email: darona98@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.252.74.7 ( talk) 21:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Tomruen. I just realized I made this table some time ago: User:Double sharp/Uniform polychora. Double sharp ( talk) 15:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
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":
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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?
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)
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)
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)
(How do you make btI and stI in Stella?) Double sharp ( talk) 07:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
In Euclidean geometry, a Platonic solid is a regular, convex polyhedron. It is constructed by congruent regular polygonal faces with the same number of faces meeting at each vertex.
Much more better, then the original. 89.135.19.75 ( talk) 18:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
The table of polyhedron properties in truncated cuboctahedron gives incorrect values for the cosines of dihedral angles. Upon digging, it turns out that it dates from this edit of yours to the "Semireg polyhedra db" template. I nearly corrected the cosine values myself, but I realized I didn't (independently) know the actual dihedral angles to compare against. (A web search is fairly polluted with Wikipedia mirrors). When you get a chance, could you update the template please? -- 128.46.119.2 ( talk) 20:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello Tomruen,
I hope my contribution in
Heptadecagon is useful. Please check the text of "Differences to the original: ..." and correct it if required ... My Englsch is no longer good. Thanks in advance --
Petrus3743 (
talk) 18:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Face configuration. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 11:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Your illustration on the right is used at the page for hypercycle (geometry) and I am wondering if the arcs are even hyper cycles. (instead of hyperbolic lines) see Talk:Hypercycle (geometry)#Wondering about image please join the discussion there
Thanks in advance WillemienH ( talk) 21:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Just to let you know: In some of your edits to Euclidean_tilings_of_regular_polygons, you use wording like
There are 151 4-uniform tilings of the Euclidean plane. Brian Galebach's search reproduced Krotenheerdt's list of 33 4-uniform tilings with 4 distinct vertex types, as well as finding 85 of them with 3 vertex types, and 33 with 2 vertex types."
I'm not sure this is quite the best wording. Krotenheerdt gives the list of 33 4-uniform tilings, but without pictures. I gave the first pictures of those 33 tilings. Galebach reproduced my list of pictures, but also discovered the list of the 85 tilings with 3 vertex types and 33 tilings with 2 vertex types. I don't really know if those distinctions are worth putting into this general article, and of course I'm too close to the issue to make such distinctions for Wikipedia, but I wanted to make sure that you, at least, understood them. Of course the same statements are also true about the 5-uniform and 6-uniform tilings by regular polygons. In my 1984 thesis (p. 187, in the "Further research" section) I wrote with respect to v-isogonal, e-isotoxal, and t-isohedral tilings: "Of course we can always try to extend these results to higher values of v, e, and t; but most further results will probably require the use of a computer search." Thus when Galebach built his program to do this (at least for the v-isogonal tilings) I was quite pleased, and also felt vindicated on that particular statement.
I should also mention that I really appreciate the work you've done on this page in constructing the beautiful colorings of these tilings. I'm not sure everyone will appreciate how long that article has gotten, but I, at least, love all the great pictures you've added. I also appreciate the fact that you added a reference to Nils Lenngren's Bachelor's thesis on k-uniform tilings. When he started working on that, he got in touch with me, and I gave him my thesis along with a few suggestions. (In fact, he's why I finally scanned my thesis in and posted it online.) I think Nils did some very nice work, and I'm glad to see him listed in this article. Darrah ( talk) 02:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Dear Tom, I see with interest your animated dodecahedron pulsating between a cube and a rhombic dodecahedron. (At Dodecahedron: File:Pyritohedron_animation.gif)
I created a dodecahedron through paper folding an icosahedron elastegrity that you can view on the top of the 6 images shown https://in.momath.org/civicrm/event/info?reset=1&id=133 The elastegrity (elastic integrity of form) was named by analogy to tensegrity (form integrity through tension alone) and consists or 8 cube corners suspended by 12 elastic hinges.
I am in the process of publishing a paper on the math objects that are implied by the physical objects created through "dactylognostic"* explorations of paper or other shape memory materials. One of the physical objects was a momohedron dodecahedron with pentagon congruent faces that had 4 equal sides and a shorter side across a right angle. Also I folded a regular dodecahedron. My mathematician collaborator (Tom Banchoff) generalized this paper folding proving a theorem that there is a whole range of monohedra dodecahedra from the cube (one of the pentagon angles = 180) to the rhombic dodecahedron (one side of the pentagon is equal to zero). This is much like the animation that you provided in the WIKI page.
Do you have a mathematical proof to support this animation? If you so where is it so we can reference in the proposed article? The physical object in addition to shape shifting through this family of Dodecahedra also shape shifts through an icosahedron, cube, octahedron, tetrahedron, a spherical structure that has the same symmetry as the 12 strut tensegrity and the fourth dimensional hypercube. if you email an address to epavlides@gmail.com I can share with you this unpublished draft.
I assume I can post some on this information in WIKI on the dodecahedra page only after it gets published in a peer reviewed journal. thanks, Lefteris Pavlides
The sentence "The Archimedeans [sic!] solids can be constructed as generator positions in a kaleidoscope." was apparently added by you to Archimedean solid. What is meant by that? The only non-proper name meaning of Kaleidoscope (disambiguation) is the well-known tube of mirrors. Can you please either reword the sentence to use standard language, or link to an article that explains what you have in mind? Thanks! — Sebastian 20:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Tom, Thank you for your contribution of an image at Meteoroid. You feel that it is better than the previously posted one. I respect your opinion, but truth to be told, I had to squint and look very carefully to see anything in the image that you posted. I had to move the image up and down on my screen to determine whether the effect in the upper left quarter was not some dust on my screen; I didn't notice that the other panels had any content, other than stars. It required reading the caption to understand that I was looking at a sequence in time, not something in a cross-hair field of view. So, I didn't feel that it illustrated the subject well. Another editor suggests at Talk:Meteoroid#Image sequence ionization trail using only the first image in the sequence. I concur that the initial image illustrates the subject sufficiently. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 00:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the images at Marjorie Rice! It's very close to what I was envisioning when I asked for this at the pentagonal tiling talk page, and I think your coloring helps make the differences between the four tilings clearer than the previous choice by Pegg of using a single color within each tile. I still think it would look a little better and be more convenient for use elsewhere if they were grouped into a single image file rather than collected together as four separate images, though. — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I have corrected back the page on Pentagonal tilings, and asked for changes in some of the figures. Please see my comment in the talk page.
Pacosantosleal ( talk) 17:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello Tom - I am interested in the pentagonal tiling (you designed the figures of the used pentagons). I have questions concerning the coloring of the sides.
Hi how can i find the wiki formatting code for the previous Flower of Life page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odarcan ( talk • contribs) 17:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Template:A2 honeycombs has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ricky81682 ( talk) 03:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I've made an two edits that reverses part of
one of yours. It appears you left a stray word (which i removed), but all i can be sure of is that grammatically it was nonsense. Thus technical review of
Icosidodecahedron#Dissection by you would be a (possibly unique) service to the project.
--
Jerzy•
t 03:05 & 03:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Flower of Life are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. — Farix ( t | c) 21:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I am trying translate Coxeter–Dynkin diagram article on Russian. Article is very difficult, not only in mathematik, but in language too. From 400 translated me articles it is one of the most difficult.
Thank you for your support and comments. Jumpow ( talk) 18:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Tom, apropos of the recent activity on pentagonal tiling, I thought you might be interested in the tiling at File:Exotic pentagonal tiling.png, if you haven't seen the pattern before. I don't particularly propose adding it to the article ... I just uploaded it for interest. Another Matt ( talk) 01:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
It looks very nice. I copied your comment to the article talk page. I outlined a "base" edge in color, and then colored seemingly 22 radial subtilings. Tom Ruen ( talk) 09:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
"Another construction of the regular heptadecagon" without function! Problem image size? -- Petrus3743 ( talk) 10:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)G
Tomruen,
it would be well for the reader if you could improve the arrangement of the two representations yet. These representations include images that can not understand directly the reader! Perhaps you succeed again an arrangement as described in article heptagon (text next to the image)? For now, thank you for your efforts! --
Petrus3743 (
talk) 12:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Very nice pics! Any chance of getting them up for the range {40, 50, 60, 64, 70, 80, 90, 100}? (I think that'd be near the end of it. Apart from {34, 48, 51, 68, 85, 96} there aren't any more constructible polygons with standard names, although {36, 72} have clean whole- or half-degree angles but are not constructible.)
(A mammoth case would be {210}, 2×3×5×7, but I don't think there is a reliable source that names it like the polygons up to {100}, and I suspect that even you would be tired out by it.) Double sharp ( talk) 15:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I tried making a {360/179} prism in Stella. The result was entertaining, but soon afterwards it threw a tantrum and stopped responding. >_< Double sharp ( talk) 12:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Comparison of the final stellations of polygons for which their number of sides is a superior highly composite number (ignoring {6}, as that just makes a hexagonal prism):
Double sharp ( talk) 12:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
This made me remember that I forgot you said you were thinking of a 360-gon for degrees, so I added it. Now that should really be it. (Do we have a table somewhere of polygons with integer-degree interior angles?) Double sharp ( talk) 12:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
OK, I've done them all and put them into 360-gon. The size of the 360-gon in the middle should keep decreasing as we increase the denominator. Incidentally I can answer my own question – the only convex regular polygons whose interior angles are a whole number of degrees have n sides, where n is one of the factors of 360, i.e. a member of the set {(1), (2), 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 18, 20, 24, 30, 36, 40, 45, 60, 72, 90, 120, 180, 360}. Double sharp ( talk) 14:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
It seems to repeat every 45 polygons, so {15} and {60} have the same colour. So I put them in a picture: (I went up to {60}, as it may be a little difficult to see the smaller polygons, so it seemed useful to show their colours again with {48} to {60}.) Double sharp ( talk) 11:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Hey there. I see that you did a lot of work on Flower of Life (geometry) after I did the other day. A lot... it looks like hundreds of edits. Ya probably wanna use that 'preview' button! You probably made that a hundred times harder on yourself. And you did rearrange some of my contributions, which is good, because it needs to be demonstrated to be primarily a naturally occuring and long-recognized phenomenon. I see that you're not a deletionist zealot, so I appreciate that. I see that you've listed a lot of sources. Do you happen to know where Flower of Life appears in the book A New Kind of Science and can you show it online? I have searched every way I know, and can't find it there. Also, perhaps you can help to organize the sources you've given in order of WP:RS, ancillary nonfictional mention, artistic work, and fictional work. And then the bottom of the barrel is the weblog or most self-published sources, which can probably be deleted. As someone else noted, even mentions in fiction do establish the cultural notability of the ideas as an ornament or as Drunvalo's ideas. I think we can definitely do this, and the opposition is rational on the surface but is also WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The article totally sucked before, but I just don't understand deletionism, especially when they waste so much effort on it. You can see my comment here. Thank you. — Smuckola (talk) 08:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you😊😊😊😊 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.98.26 ( talk) 00:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Tom,
I didn't remove the column. I changed it. In principle, the rows of this table correspond to families of Schoenflies notations: Cn, Cnv, Dh, ..., not to the similar HM symbols. Now the first column looks confusing, because most rows contain (or should contain) several HM symbols. For example, row should be or 2n, row should be or 2nrm or 2nm2. Last row should be or or .
I created this table in 2011 https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Hermann%E2%80%93Mauguin_notation&type=revision&diff=464296334&oldid=461726101 and I never liked the first column, and only yesterday I realized that actually each row corresponds to families of Schoenflies notations. The second reason, why it is better to use Schoenflies in the first column, because usually people know Schoenflies notation, but do not know HM, so this column will give them quick connection between two symbols.
Right now the first column looks ugly, doesn't have all information (and if we add missing HM notations in the first column, it will look worse), and actually it is redundant, because table already shows HM symbols for different n in each row.
Bor75 ( talk) 15:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 22:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Tom, I guess you're planning to cut down the overlap between your new article and the one at AfD? Chiswick Chap ( talk) 16:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
You've been invited to be part of WikiProject Cosmology | |
Hello. Your contributions to Wikipedia have been analyzed carefully and you're among the few chosen to have a first access to a new project. I hope you can contribute to it by expanding the main page and later start editing the articles in its scope. Make sure to check out the Talk page for more information! Cheers Tetra quark ( talk) 19:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC) |
Hi, Im new to wikipedia and just looking around I noticed you have really amazing. I was looking at this page User:Tomruen/Geodestic_sphere and i was wondering if there was a 2d Net somewhere for those shapes. Like someone thing you could theoretically print out on a piece of paper and then fold into those shapes. — also I was wondering what program you were using to make those images.—thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jooe15 ( talk • contribs) 02:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jooe15, Thanks! Most I didn't do but I have software to make nets. This [1] Free webpage generates polyhedra, and OBJ export. And not-free Stella (software) can draw nets of imported polyhedra. Which one are you interested in. Conway polyhedron notation is given on many at Goldberg polyhedron and Capsid. Tom Ruen ( talk) 03:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Tom, you are plastering references to Johnson, Geometries and transformations (2015) across Wikipedia as fast as you can type. At present I can find no reference at all to this publication elsewhere, not Google, not Amazon, nada, zilch. There are just the old few references to the draft MS he circulated some years ago. What is your basis for all this? If it doesn't appear ASAP, you will have made a handsome mess. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 10:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I decided to drop you a message to make sure you check out the first task of the cosmology project: Help improve the Universe. Please feel free to remove this message after you read it :) Tetra quark ( talk) 03:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
It works with cantellation too! [2] ;-) Double sharp ( talk) 07:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, how's this?
It would be better with a few more intermediate cases, though. Double sharp ( talk) 11:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
It looks very nice, but we have no sources besides Bowers who uses his own terminology. Tom Ruen ( talk) 11:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Tomruen, do you know any way to make pictures for cases like ht0,1,2,3{4,3,3}? Double sharp ( talk) 13:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello! I'm Daria from Russia. I'm very sorry, but I heve some difficaltes with translation into English some terms and wordings conected with chasles theorem, affine motions of plane turn, glide reflection, symmetry,rotational movement... Maybe you know some good webside about that topic? I can't find a good one. Could you help me, please? My email: darona98@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.252.74.7 ( talk) 21:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Tomruen. I just realized I made this table some time ago: User:Double sharp/Uniform polychora. Double sharp ( talk) 15:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
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":
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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?
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)
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)
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)
(How do you make btI and stI in Stella?) Double sharp ( talk) 07:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
In Euclidean geometry, a Platonic solid is a regular, convex polyhedron. It is constructed by congruent regular polygonal faces with the same number of faces meeting at each vertex.
Much more better, then the original. 89.135.19.75 ( talk) 18:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
The table of polyhedron properties in truncated cuboctahedron gives incorrect values for the cosines of dihedral angles. Upon digging, it turns out that it dates from this edit of yours to the "Semireg polyhedra db" template. I nearly corrected the cosine values myself, but I realized I didn't (independently) know the actual dihedral angles to compare against. (A web search is fairly polluted with Wikipedia mirrors). When you get a chance, could you update the template please? -- 128.46.119.2 ( talk) 20:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello Tomruen,
I hope my contribution in
Heptadecagon is useful. Please check the text of "Differences to the original: ..." and correct it if required ... My Englsch is no longer good. Thanks in advance --
Petrus3743 (
talk) 18:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Face configuration. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 11:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Your illustration on the right is used at the page for hypercycle (geometry) and I am wondering if the arcs are even hyper cycles. (instead of hyperbolic lines) see Talk:Hypercycle (geometry)#Wondering about image please join the discussion there
Thanks in advance WillemienH ( talk) 21:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Just to let you know: In some of your edits to Euclidean_tilings_of_regular_polygons, you use wording like
There are 151 4-uniform tilings of the Euclidean plane. Brian Galebach's search reproduced Krotenheerdt's list of 33 4-uniform tilings with 4 distinct vertex types, as well as finding 85 of them with 3 vertex types, and 33 with 2 vertex types."
I'm not sure this is quite the best wording. Krotenheerdt gives the list of 33 4-uniform tilings, but without pictures. I gave the first pictures of those 33 tilings. Galebach reproduced my list of pictures, but also discovered the list of the 85 tilings with 3 vertex types and 33 tilings with 2 vertex types. I don't really know if those distinctions are worth putting into this general article, and of course I'm too close to the issue to make such distinctions for Wikipedia, but I wanted to make sure that you, at least, understood them. Of course the same statements are also true about the 5-uniform and 6-uniform tilings by regular polygons. In my 1984 thesis (p. 187, in the "Further research" section) I wrote with respect to v-isogonal, e-isotoxal, and t-isohedral tilings: "Of course we can always try to extend these results to higher values of v, e, and t; but most further results will probably require the use of a computer search." Thus when Galebach built his program to do this (at least for the v-isogonal tilings) I was quite pleased, and also felt vindicated on that particular statement.
I should also mention that I really appreciate the work you've done on this page in constructing the beautiful colorings of these tilings. I'm not sure everyone will appreciate how long that article has gotten, but I, at least, love all the great pictures you've added. I also appreciate the fact that you added a reference to Nils Lenngren's Bachelor's thesis on k-uniform tilings. When he started working on that, he got in touch with me, and I gave him my thesis along with a few suggestions. (In fact, he's why I finally scanned my thesis in and posted it online.) I think Nils did some very nice work, and I'm glad to see him listed in this article. Darrah ( talk) 02:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Dear Tom, I see with interest your animated dodecahedron pulsating between a cube and a rhombic dodecahedron. (At Dodecahedron: File:Pyritohedron_animation.gif)
I created a dodecahedron through paper folding an icosahedron elastegrity that you can view on the top of the 6 images shown https://in.momath.org/civicrm/event/info?reset=1&id=133 The elastegrity (elastic integrity of form) was named by analogy to tensegrity (form integrity through tension alone) and consists or 8 cube corners suspended by 12 elastic hinges.
I am in the process of publishing a paper on the math objects that are implied by the physical objects created through "dactylognostic"* explorations of paper or other shape memory materials. One of the physical objects was a momohedron dodecahedron with pentagon congruent faces that had 4 equal sides and a shorter side across a right angle. Also I folded a regular dodecahedron. My mathematician collaborator (Tom Banchoff) generalized this paper folding proving a theorem that there is a whole range of monohedra dodecahedra from the cube (one of the pentagon angles = 180) to the rhombic dodecahedron (one side of the pentagon is equal to zero). This is much like the animation that you provided in the WIKI page.
Do you have a mathematical proof to support this animation? If you so where is it so we can reference in the proposed article? The physical object in addition to shape shifting through this family of Dodecahedra also shape shifts through an icosahedron, cube, octahedron, tetrahedron, a spherical structure that has the same symmetry as the 12 strut tensegrity and the fourth dimensional hypercube. if you email an address to epavlides@gmail.com I can share with you this unpublished draft.
I assume I can post some on this information in WIKI on the dodecahedra page only after it gets published in a peer reviewed journal. thanks, Lefteris Pavlides
The sentence "The Archimedeans [sic!] solids can be constructed as generator positions in a kaleidoscope." was apparently added by you to Archimedean solid. What is meant by that? The only non-proper name meaning of Kaleidoscope (disambiguation) is the well-known tube of mirrors. Can you please either reword the sentence to use standard language, or link to an article that explains what you have in mind? Thanks! — Sebastian 20:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Tom, Thank you for your contribution of an image at Meteoroid. You feel that it is better than the previously posted one. I respect your opinion, but truth to be told, I had to squint and look very carefully to see anything in the image that you posted. I had to move the image up and down on my screen to determine whether the effect in the upper left quarter was not some dust on my screen; I didn't notice that the other panels had any content, other than stars. It required reading the caption to understand that I was looking at a sequence in time, not something in a cross-hair field of view. So, I didn't feel that it illustrated the subject well. Another editor suggests at Talk:Meteoroid#Image sequence ionization trail using only the first image in the sequence. I concur that the initial image illustrates the subject sufficiently. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 00:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the images at Marjorie Rice! It's very close to what I was envisioning when I asked for this at the pentagonal tiling talk page, and I think your coloring helps make the differences between the four tilings clearer than the previous choice by Pegg of using a single color within each tile. I still think it would look a little better and be more convenient for use elsewhere if they were grouped into a single image file rather than collected together as four separate images, though. — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I have corrected back the page on Pentagonal tilings, and asked for changes in some of the figures. Please see my comment in the talk page.
Pacosantosleal ( talk) 17:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello Tom - I am interested in the pentagonal tiling (you designed the figures of the used pentagons). I have questions concerning the coloring of the sides.
Hi how can i find the wiki formatting code for the previous Flower of Life page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odarcan ( talk • contribs) 17:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Template:A2 honeycombs has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ricky81682 ( talk) 03:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I've made an two edits that reverses part of
one of yours. It appears you left a stray word (which i removed), but all i can be sure of is that grammatically it was nonsense. Thus technical review of
Icosidodecahedron#Dissection by you would be a (possibly unique) service to the project.
--
Jerzy•
t 03:05 & 03:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Flower of Life are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. — Farix ( t | c) 21:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I am trying translate Coxeter–Dynkin diagram article on Russian. Article is very difficult, not only in mathematik, but in language too. From 400 translated me articles it is one of the most difficult.
Thank you for your support and comments. Jumpow ( talk) 18:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Tom, apropos of the recent activity on pentagonal tiling, I thought you might be interested in the tiling at File:Exotic pentagonal tiling.png, if you haven't seen the pattern before. I don't particularly propose adding it to the article ... I just uploaded it for interest. Another Matt ( talk) 01:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
It looks very nice. I copied your comment to the article talk page. I outlined a "base" edge in color, and then colored seemingly 22 radial subtilings. Tom Ruen ( talk) 09:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
"Another construction of the regular heptadecagon" without function! Problem image size? -- Petrus3743 ( talk) 10:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)G
Tomruen,
it would be well for the reader if you could improve the arrangement of the two representations yet. These representations include images that can not understand directly the reader! Perhaps you succeed again an arrangement as described in article heptagon (text next to the image)? For now, thank you for your efforts! --
Petrus3743 (
talk) 12:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Very nice pics! Any chance of getting them up for the range {40, 50, 60, 64, 70, 80, 90, 100}? (I think that'd be near the end of it. Apart from {34, 48, 51, 68, 85, 96} there aren't any more constructible polygons with standard names, although {36, 72} have clean whole- or half-degree angles but are not constructible.)
(A mammoth case would be {210}, 2×3×5×7, but I don't think there is a reliable source that names it like the polygons up to {100}, and I suspect that even you would be tired out by it.) Double sharp ( talk) 15:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I tried making a {360/179} prism in Stella. The result was entertaining, but soon afterwards it threw a tantrum and stopped responding. >_< Double sharp ( talk) 12:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Comparison of the final stellations of polygons for which their number of sides is a superior highly composite number (ignoring {6}, as that just makes a hexagonal prism):
Double sharp ( talk) 12:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
This made me remember that I forgot you said you were thinking of a 360-gon for degrees, so I added it. Now that should really be it. (Do we have a table somewhere of polygons with integer-degree interior angles?) Double sharp ( talk) 12:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
OK, I've done them all and put them into 360-gon. The size of the 360-gon in the middle should keep decreasing as we increase the denominator. Incidentally I can answer my own question – the only convex regular polygons whose interior angles are a whole number of degrees have n sides, where n is one of the factors of 360, i.e. a member of the set {(1), (2), 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 18, 20, 24, 30, 36, 40, 45, 60, 72, 90, 120, 180, 360}. Double sharp ( talk) 14:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
It seems to repeat every 45 polygons, so {15} and {60} have the same colour. So I put them in a picture: (I went up to {60}, as it may be a little difficult to see the smaller polygons, so it seemed useful to show their colours again with {48} to {60}.) Double sharp ( talk) 11:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Hey there. I see that you did a lot of work on Flower of Life (geometry) after I did the other day. A lot... it looks like hundreds of edits. Ya probably wanna use that 'preview' button! You probably made that a hundred times harder on yourself. And you did rearrange some of my contributions, which is good, because it needs to be demonstrated to be primarily a naturally occuring and long-recognized phenomenon. I see that you're not a deletionist zealot, so I appreciate that. I see that you've listed a lot of sources. Do you happen to know where Flower of Life appears in the book A New Kind of Science and can you show it online? I have searched every way I know, and can't find it there. Also, perhaps you can help to organize the sources you've given in order of WP:RS, ancillary nonfictional mention, artistic work, and fictional work. And then the bottom of the barrel is the weblog or most self-published sources, which can probably be deleted. As someone else noted, even mentions in fiction do establish the cultural notability of the ideas as an ornament or as Drunvalo's ideas. I think we can definitely do this, and the opposition is rational on the surface but is also WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The article totally sucked before, but I just don't understand deletionism, especially when they waste so much effort on it. You can see my comment here. Thank you. — Smuckola (talk) 08:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you😊😊😊😊 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.98.26 ( talk) 00:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Tom,
I didn't remove the column. I changed it. In principle, the rows of this table correspond to families of Schoenflies notations: Cn, Cnv, Dh, ..., not to the similar HM symbols. Now the first column looks confusing, because most rows contain (or should contain) several HM symbols. For example, row should be or 2n, row should be or 2nrm or 2nm2. Last row should be or or .
I created this table in 2011 https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Hermann%E2%80%93Mauguin_notation&type=revision&diff=464296334&oldid=461726101 and I never liked the first column, and only yesterday I realized that actually each row corresponds to families of Schoenflies notations. The second reason, why it is better to use Schoenflies in the first column, because usually people know Schoenflies notation, but do not know HM, so this column will give them quick connection between two symbols.
Right now the first column looks ugly, doesn't have all information (and if we add missing HM notations in the first column, it will look worse), and actually it is redundant, because table already shows HM symbols for different n in each row.
Bor75 ( talk) 15:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 22:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Tom, I guess you're planning to cut down the overlap between your new article and the one at AfD? Chiswick Chap ( talk) 16:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)