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?flirelated 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!
