- Home
- Get A Printable Dictionary
- Search Best Words
- Recent Changes
- How You Can Help
- valsi - All
- valsi - Preferred Only
- natlang - All
- natlang - Preferred Only
- Languages
- XML Export
- user Listing
- Report Bugs
- Utilities
- Status
- Help
- Admin Request
- Create Account
|
Discussion of "tarmrclefli"
[parent]
[root]
Comment #1:
Support
|
Curtis W Franks (Fri Jun 26 06:06:30 2015)
|
I presently do not know how to support the usage/description of Schlafli symbols. Moreover, my current definition mentions "similar to the regular polytope described by Schlafli symbol" (rather than simply but more properly/exactly "the regular polytope described by Schlafli symbol"); if too little support exists, I recommend the maintenance of the current definition, that way irregular polytopes can easily be described (as we just for them to be regular by appending the seltau for "regular" before this word); if enough support is given, it might be okay to change the definition so as to reference only the exact polytope given by the Schlafli symbol (which classically is regular but with certain operators, becomes semiregular, etc.), but doing so may not be practically advantageous. For example, rectangles can be described by x, where "x" is a Cartesian product, but that is much harder to say than "similar to 4"; the current definition would allow for the latter, although confusion between quadrilaterals would ensue (which can be mopped up via tanru, clauses, etc.), but the more restrictive definition would necessitate the use of only the former. The current definition make x = 4, which is somewhat wasteful, not to mention annoying to mathematicians who actually want to be careful/distinguish these objects. So, what are your opinions on: 1) How should we support Schlafli symbol notation? 2) Which definition should be used given the support that you described?
Note: represents a line segment.
|
-
Comment #2:
Re: Support
|
Curtis W Franks (Fri Jun 26 06:17:09 2015)
|
Oops: Mark-up mutilated the description. Let Schlafli symbols be denoted with round parenthesis "(" and ")" rather than curly braces. What looks like just "x" above (except in the description of "x" being the Cartesian product) is actually the Cartesian product of two empty Schlafli symbols: ()x(). What looks like "4" above is actually the Schlafli symbol for a square: (4).
|
-
|
Comment #3:
Re: Support
|
Wuzzy (Fri Jun 26 14:27:14 2015)
|
krtisfranks wrote: > I presently do not know how to support the usage/description of Schlafli > symbols. Moreover, my current definition mentions "similar to the regular > polytope described by Schlafli symbol" (rather than simply but more > properly/exactly "the regular polytope described by Schlafli symbol"); if
> too little support exists, I recommend the maintenance of the current > definition, that way irregular polytopes can easily be described (as we > just for them to be regular by appending the seltau for "regular" before > this word); if enough support is given, it might be okay to change the > definition so as to reference only the exact polytope given by the Schlafli > symbol (which classically is regular but with certain operators, becomes > semiregular, etc.), but doing so may not be practically advantageous. For
> example, rectangles can be described by x, where "x" is a Cartesian > product, but that is much harder to say than "similar to 4"; the current > definition would allow for the latter, although confusion between > quadrilaterals would ensue (which can be mopped up via tanru, clauses, > etc.), but the more restrictive definition would necessitate the use of > only the former. The current definition make x = 4, which is somewhat > wasteful, not to mention annoying to mathematicians who actually want to be > careful/distinguish these objects. > So, what are your opinions on: > 1) How should we support Schlafli symbol notation? > 2) Which definition should be used given the support that you described? > > Note: represents a line segment.
I can't help much here because I don't know anything about the concept in question. If you can't decide for one fu'ivla which makes you happy, then maybe create multiple cibyfu'ivla for similar Schl?fli-related concepts, just change the ?topic rafsi? as needed.
For example, simsrclefli if you want to emphasize similarity, instead of an exact match, etc.
|
-
Comment #4:
Re: Support
|
Curtis W Franks (Sat Jun 27 04:16:38 2015)
|
Wuzzy wrote: > krtisfranks wrote: > > I presently do not know how to support the usage/description of Schlafli > > symbols. Moreover, my current definition mentions "similar to the > regular > > polytope described by Schlafli symbol" (rather than simply but more > > properly/exactly "the regular polytope described by Schlafli symbol"); if > > > too little support exists, I recommend the maintenance of the current > > definition, that way irregular polytopes can easily be described (as we
> > just for them to be regular by appending the seltau for "regular" before > > this word); if enough support is given, it might be okay to change the > > definition so as to reference only the exact polytope given by the > Schlafli > > symbol (which classically is regular but with certain operators, becomes > > semiregular, etc.), but doing so may not be practically advantageous. For > > > example, rectangles can be described by x, where "x" is a Cartesian
> > product, but that is much harder to say than "similar to 4"; the > current > > definition would allow for the latter, although confusion between > > quadrilaterals would ensue (which can be mopped up via tanru, clauses, > > etc.), but the more restrictive definition would necessitate the use of
> > only the former. The current definition make x = 4, which is > somewhat > > wasteful, not to mention annoying to mathematicians who actually want to > be > > careful/distinguish these objects. > > So, what are your opinions on: > > 1) How should we support Schlafli symbol notation? > > 2) Which definition should be used given the support that you described? > > > > Note: represents a line segment. > > I can't help much here because I don't know anything about the concept in
> question. > If you can't decide for one fu'ivla which makes you happy, then > maybe create multiple cibyfu'ivla for similar Schl?fli-related concepts, > just change the ?topic rafsi? as needed. > > For example, simsrclefli if you want to emphasize similarity, instead of > an exact match, etc.
Good idea. I am going to mull it over a bit and then possibly use that idea, depending on my finalized thoughts. Thanks!
|
-
|
|
|
|