(Translated by https://www.hiragana.jp/)
Talk:Johnson solid: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia Jump to content

Talk:Johnson solid: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
Line 24: Line 24:
==Johnson numbers==
==Johnson numbers==
Is the numbering of the Johnson solids arbitrary? If not, how are the Johnson numbers determined? I think this should be mentioned in the article. [[User:Factitious|Factitious]] 19:25, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
Is the numbering of the Johnson solids arbitrary? If not, how are the Johnson numbers determined? I think this should be mentioned in the article. [[User:Factitious|Factitious]] 19:25, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
:Good point - the numbering was in Johnson's original paper. I have amended the article. [[User:AndrewKepert|Andrew Kepert]] 00:29, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:29, 22 November 2004

Images

I have been modifying user:Cyp's image:Poly.pov povray macros to generate images of as many of the Johnson solids as I can. See User:AndrewKepert/poly.pov for what may be the latest version. Here is where I am tracking progress. Bold numbers have images.

Relocated to User:AndrewKepert/polyhedra

Images of the flat kind

Doesn't do 3d, and only knows 2 Johnson solids (so far), but here's makepolys.c.

Κかっぱσしぐまυうぷしろんπぱい Cyp   00:27, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Elongated square gyrobicupola

The picture is wrong - that's obviously a rhombicuboctahedron. Compare: [1]

  • No it is right. Look again. Andrew Kepert 03:47, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The list

Usually it would be called good practice to make a list such as that in this article stand-alone. Not something to insist on, perhaps, in this case; but it is something to think about, in the way of writing the article so that it doesn't 'wrap' round having the list there in the current way. Charles Matthews 09:13, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Johnson numbers

Is the numbering of the Johnson solids arbitrary? If not, how are the Johnson numbers determined? I think this should be mentioned in the article. Factitious 19:25, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Good point - the numbering was in Johnson's original paper. I have amended the article. Andrew Kepert 00:29, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)