Talk:Elongated square gyrobicupola
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
Pseudorhombicuboctahedron?
[edit]Why is it called a pseudorhombicuboctahedron? --116.14.72.74 (talk) 13:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- It has the same vertex figures and on quick inspection, you might think they are the same polyhedron. Tom Ruen (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I couldn't tell the difference at first.
- Solid versions:
- Transparent versions:
Archimedean?
[edit]The pseudorhombicuboctahedron has vertex figure 3.4.4.4 at all vertices, so shouldn't it be the fourteenth Archimedean solid? Professor M. Fiendish, Esq. 05:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
It's not a uniform polyhedron, but if you just look at vertex figures, it is unique in this regards, only Johnson solid with a fixed verf. Tom Ruen (talk) 06:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- Here's an explanation from George Hart. [1] Tom Ruen (talk) 06:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- Eh, what does the pseudo great rhombicuboctahedron look like? (Sorry, I don't have a VRML installed yet.) Professor M. Fiendish, Esq. 02:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's with the picture linking to WRL, [2], how do you describe it? Dihedral symmetry anyway. Tom Ruen (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
History and alternative names
[edit]Some history (Kepler seems to have thought it was the 14th Archimedean) and alternative names ("Miller-Ashkinuze solid" etc.) at this reference: [3] -- AnonMoos (talk) 03:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Rotate image
[edit]The image<br\> <br\> is an elongated square gyrobicupola but, unlike its solid version<br\> <br\> and its graphic explanation<br\> <br\> the octagonal prism is presented vertically (not horizontally) and the rotated square cupolae is on its side (not under the prism).<br\> Here I have proposed to rotate the image by 280º to make it look a bit more like the other two images presented in the article; that way the readers wouldn't have to twist their neck on one side to be able to compare the figure to the other two.<br\> If anybody had the code to generate the figure - the job could be done with better results.<br\> Also I think that it would be more intuitive if the rotated square cupolae was on the top of the octagonal prism, not under (?!).<br\> Thewarriltonsiegedoc (talk) 01:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, I tried rotating it. Tom Ruen (talk) 02:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)