Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a240ff84caa4724e

Jump to content

Talk:Rectified 5-cell

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 6 years ago by 50.205.142.50 in topic Utterly unclear second paragraph

Utterly unclear second paragraph

[edit]

The second paragraph reads as follows:

"Topologically, under its highest symmetry, [3,3,3], there is only one geometrical form, containing 5 regular tetrahedra and 5 rectified tetrahedra (which is geometrically the same as a regular octahedron). It is also topologically identical to a tetrahedron-octahedron segmentochoron."

Almost every claim of these two sentences it utterly unclear. This is a terrible, terrible way to begin a Wikipedia article.

  • What is meant by "topologically"??? (Topologically, the polytope is a 3-dimensional sphere or a 4-dimensional ball, depending on whether you consider the entire convex hull or only its boundary. So: What does this mean???
  • What is meant by "its highest symmetry"??? Does this mean the full symmetry group of this polytope? If so, why not say so? If not, why not say what is actually meant?
  • What is meant by the phrase "geometrical form"? In an article like this about a polytope, it could mean almost anything.
  • The phrase "which is" is ungrammatical, because its antecedent is "rectified tetrahedra", which is plural. It does not help the reader for a writer to rush and write ungrammatical sentences like this; it is just confusing.
  • The second sentence once again uses the idea of "topologically identical", which is again utterly unclear in this context.
  • Then this sentence uses the appellation "tetrahedron-octahedron segmentochoron", which is also utterly unclear for multiple reasons. Among these is the fact that nobody knows what a segmentochoron is. Another reason is that the suffix -choron is not a standard term but instead is the projection of one individual's ego into Wikipedia.50.205.142.50 (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)Reply