Talk:Polytope families

Page name[edit]

Discussion moved from Talk:Polytope

Please rename the page so that its title would correctly reflect its actual content: clearly, not all polytope families are intended to be there. Twri (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think it should be called? -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All are Semiregular polytopes by Elte's definition, or a tiny subset of uniform polytopes by Coxeter. SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 23:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or, should the scope be expanded to include more families, with the current table relegated to just one section? The article is quite small as it stands. If people need to transclude the table, then that should be moved to its own template and transcluded back here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Polygons[edit]

Someone has added the (infinite set of) polygon symmetries. These impact the third dimension as the family of uniform prisms, etc. Should this lot be added to the table, or might it be better to remove the polygon symmetries? Does it depend on whether we take the article title as our guide or accept that the topic is not notable and the content is better off hijacked as a table of symmetries? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This table show irreducible groups, so excludes prisms of any sort. I like regular polygons inclusion, except already too wide. I tried merging into D column. Tom Ruen (talk) 14:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is a problem I have with this table. It is the sole significant content of an article on polytope families, yet it has been honed to show irreducible groups. There is no explanation of how and why irreducible groups relate to polytope families. For example one can create higher-dimensional prisms in any dimension simply via orthogonal extension of a polytope from the dimension below. Is that not a polytope family, regardless of any irreducible grouping or otherwise? Or, should we move this article to Polytopes with irreducible group symmetries or whatever it is actually about? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good to at least mention what "irreducible" means and what it excludes. —Tamfang (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, could use more explanation. This list is a bit bigger than the regular polytopes, including end-rings from the D/E bifurcating Coxeter groups. The prisms won't have Petrie polygons in general though, which comes from the family Coxeter number. Tom Ruen (talk) 16:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On other additions I started a Gosset-Elte figures article long ago, a name Norman gave to single-ringed uniform polytopes, but I couldn't find any real sources. Another old article started List_of_Coxeter_groups relates to the prisms, but expands quickly with dimensions and also not citable sources. Other directions would be n-dimensional pyramids - Richard has a page on what he calls axial polytopes [1] with various families outside of uniformity, but nothing particularly documentable. A small set are at hypercupola. Tom Ruen (talk) 21:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing table[edit]

Is there a way for this table to be "shown" by default? Tom Ruen (talk) 12:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]