> krtisfranks wrote:
> > I presently do not know how to support the usage/description of
> > symbols. Moreover, my current definition mentions "similar to the
> > polytope described by Schlafli symbol" (rather than simply but more
> > properly/exactly "the regular polytope described by Schlafli symbol");
> > 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"
> > 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
> > symbol (which classically is regular but with certain operators,
> > semiregular, etc.), but doing so may not be practically advantageous.
> > 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
> > 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
> > wasteful, not to mention annoying to mathematicians who actually want
> > 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
> > Note: represents a line segment.
> I can't help much here because I don't know anything about the concept in
> 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
> 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!