jbovlaste
a lojban dictionary editing system
User:
Pass:

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
Create Account
Discussion of "jinda"
[parent] [root]
Comment #1: Generalizing and Etymology
Curtis W Franks (Mon Jul 13 15:53:53 2015)

Why restrict this to polygons (two-dimensional space)? I would see this
most as star polytopes, which is to say that the domain of reference is at
least the set of all shapes given by Schlafli symbols that are well-formed
and which contain at least one positive non-integer rational number (quite
possibly in coprime ("lowest") terms); furthermore, it is possible that
various trivial reductions could be allowed (for example, lines and convex
polytopes could be considered to be stars without indentations) - I would
not disallow these possibilities.
If we keep it to two-dimensions and keep them regular, than all we need is
the number of outer vertices and how they are connected (is it every other,
every three, etc.?); my comments about trivial cases still applies. But I
also think that that it could be useful to have the terbri for outer and
inner vertices (as you basically already do, although I am not sure that
they actually are vertices) because they can now easily be referenced via
conversion.

What is the etymology?

Aside: I was actually just thinking about how this should be a gismu the
other day. I even told my friend about it. Stars have been on my mind
lately because of my research.

 Comment #2: Re: Generalizing and Etymology Curtis W Franks (Mon Jul 13 15:54:54 2015) krtisfranks wrote:> Why restrict this to polygons (two-dimensional space)? I would see this > most as star polytopes, which is to say that the domain of reference is at > least the set of all shapes given by Schlafli symbols that are well-formed > and which contain at least one positive non-integer rational number (quite > possibly in coprime ("lowest") terms); furthermore, it is possible that > various trivial reductions could be allowed (for example, lines and convex > polytopes could be considered to be stars without indentations) - I would> not disallow these possibilities.> If we keep it to two-dimensions and keep them regular, than all we need is > the number of outer vertices and how they are connected (is it every other,> every three, etc.?); my comments about trivial cases still applies. But I> also think that that it could be useful to have the terbri for outer and > inner vertices (as you basically already do, although I am not sure that > they actually are vertices) because they can now easily be referenced via> conversion.> > > What is the etymology?Ignore this> > > Aside: I was actually just thinking about how this should be a gismu the > other day. I even told my friend about it. Stars have been on my mind > lately because of my research.
Comment #3: Re: Generalizing and Etymology
Curtis W Franks (Mon Jul 13 16:04:35 2015)

krtisfranks wrote:
> Why restrict this to polygons (two-dimensional space)? I would see this
> most as star polytopes, which is to say that the domain of reference is
at
> least the set of all shapes given by Schlafli symbols that are
well-formed
> and which contain at least one positive non-integer rational number
(quite
> possibly in coprime ("lowest") terms); furthermore, it is possible that
> various trivial reductions could be allowed (for example, lines and
convex
> polytopes could be considered to be stars without indentations) - I would

> not disallow these possibilities.
> If we keep it to two-dimensions and keep them regular, than all we need
is
> the number of outer vertices and how they are connected (is it every
other,
> every three, etc.?); my comments about trivial cases still applies. But I

> also think that that it could be useful to have the terbri for outer and
> inner vertices (as you basically already do, although I am not sure that
> they actually are vertices) because they can now easily be referenced via

> conversion.

Oh, here is a difference: This word is for the shape formed by tracing out
the outline rather than from outer vertex to outer vertex (in my previous
definition, there actually are only the outer vertices; the inner ones are
illusions).

Comment #4: Re: Generalizing and Etymology
Curtis W Franks (Mon Jul 13 16:34:29 2015)

krtisfranks wrote:
> krtisfranks wrote:
> > Why restrict this to polygons (two-dimensional space)? I would see this

> > most as star polytopes, which is to say that the domain of reference is

> at
> > least the set of all shapes given by Schlafli symbols that are
> well-formed
> > and which contain at least one positive non-integer rational number
> (quite
> > possibly in coprime ("lowest") terms); furthermore, it is possible that

> > various trivial reductions could be allowed (for example, lines and
> convex
> > polytopes could be considered to be stars without indentations) - I
would
>
> > not disallow these possibilities.
> > If we keep it to two-dimensions and keep them regular, than all we need

> is
> > the number of outer vertices and how they are connected (is it every
> other,
> > every three, etc.?); my comments about trivial cases still applies. But
I
>
> > also think that that it could be useful to have the terbri for outer
and
> > inner vertices (as you basically already do, although I am not sure
that
> > they actually are vertices) because they can now easily be referenced
via
>
> > conversion.
>
> Oh, here is a difference: This word is for the shape formed by tracing
out
> the outline rather than from outer vertex to outer vertex (in my previous

> definition, there actually are only the outer vertices; the inner ones
are
> illusions).

Okay. I have tried to formalize the concept as follows:

Define a "polytopal hull" to be the minimal hypervolume that is connected,
has a polygonal/polytopal boundary, and which contains (either within its
interior or its boundary) all of the vertices and edges of the
Euclidean-spatial embedding of a graph.

Then this word is the polytopal hull of a graph given by a Schlafli symbol
as described before.

I think that that works.

 Comment #5: Re: Generalizing and Etymology Jonathan (Mon Jul 13 22:50:06 2015) It all comes back to that canlu problem doesn't it? We need to first finda way to deal with dimensionality, then we can deal with distinguishing shapes by dimensionality.Perhaps lujvo can be built out of this for star polytopes.
 Currently, jbovlaste will accept data for 69 languages. You are not logged in.

 recent changes jbovlaste main This is jbovlaste, the lojban dictionary system. The main code was last changed on Wed 07 Oct 2020 05:54:55 PM PDT. All content is public domain. By submitting content, you agree to place it in the public domain to the fullest extent allowed by local law. jbovlaste is an official project of the logical language group, and is now headed by Robin Lee Powell. E-mail him if you have any questions. care to log in?