Octahedra with four equilateral faces
$begingroup$
Let $A_1, A_2, A_3, A'_1, A'_2, A'_3$ be the vertices of a (not-necessarily convex) octahedron; here $X'$ is the vertex not on an edge with $X$. Suppose that the four non-adjacent triangular faces $A_1 A_2 A_3$, $A_1 A'_2 A'_3$,$A'_1 A_2 A'_3$,$A'_1 A'_2 A_3$ are equilateral with sides of lengths $x_0, x_1, x_2, x_3$.
I am interested in knowing the conditions on $x_0,x_1,x_2,x_3$ that must be satisfied for such a configuration to exist; and how unique the configuration is. This is a preliminary step to understanding this Question on Octahedra
and the answer by @Blue.
Clearly it is necessary that $x_i>0$ for each $i$; and by using the triangle inequality on the other four faces, that $x_i+x_j>x_k$ for every 3-set ${i,j,k}subset {0,1,2,3}$.
Question 1: are these conditions sufficient for existence? I think so, but have only a hand-waving argument and would like something better.
It seems to me that if such a configuration exists for some $x_0,x_1,x_2,x_3$ then in general if we fix $A_2, A_3, A'_1, A'_2, A'_3$ there are two points $A_1$ which satisfy the right conditions, giving a convex octahedron and a non-convex one. Again I can only wave my hands, and my intuition may be wrong. So,
Question 2: what can be proved about uniqueness?
Lastly, to get some feeling for which $(x_0,x_1, x_2,x_3)$ yield an octahedron, I would like to understand their geometry.
Question 3: Describe geometrically the (subset of) the solid bounded by
begin{align*}
x_0+x_1+x_2+x_3&=1;&\
x_i&=0, &i=0,dots,3; \
x_i+x_j&=x_k &textrm{ for every 3-set } {i,j,k}subset {0,1,2,3}
end{align*}
which yield solutions.
geometry polyhedra
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $A_1, A_2, A_3, A'_1, A'_2, A'_3$ be the vertices of a (not-necessarily convex) octahedron; here $X'$ is the vertex not on an edge with $X$. Suppose that the four non-adjacent triangular faces $A_1 A_2 A_3$, $A_1 A'_2 A'_3$,$A'_1 A_2 A'_3$,$A'_1 A'_2 A_3$ are equilateral with sides of lengths $x_0, x_1, x_2, x_3$.
I am interested in knowing the conditions on $x_0,x_1,x_2,x_3$ that must be satisfied for such a configuration to exist; and how unique the configuration is. This is a preliminary step to understanding this Question on Octahedra
and the answer by @Blue.
Clearly it is necessary that $x_i>0$ for each $i$; and by using the triangle inequality on the other four faces, that $x_i+x_j>x_k$ for every 3-set ${i,j,k}subset {0,1,2,3}$.
Question 1: are these conditions sufficient for existence? I think so, but have only a hand-waving argument and would like something better.
It seems to me that if such a configuration exists for some $x_0,x_1,x_2,x_3$ then in general if we fix $A_2, A_3, A'_1, A'_2, A'_3$ there are two points $A_1$ which satisfy the right conditions, giving a convex octahedron and a non-convex one. Again I can only wave my hands, and my intuition may be wrong. So,
Question 2: what can be proved about uniqueness?
Lastly, to get some feeling for which $(x_0,x_1, x_2,x_3)$ yield an octahedron, I would like to understand their geometry.
Question 3: Describe geometrically the (subset of) the solid bounded by
begin{align*}
x_0+x_1+x_2+x_3&=1;&\
x_i&=0, &i=0,dots,3; \
x_i+x_j&=x_k &textrm{ for every 3-set } {i,j,k}subset {0,1,2,3}
end{align*}
which yield solutions.
geometry polyhedra
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $A_1, A_2, A_3, A'_1, A'_2, A'_3$ be the vertices of a (not-necessarily convex) octahedron; here $X'$ is the vertex not on an edge with $X$. Suppose that the four non-adjacent triangular faces $A_1 A_2 A_3$, $A_1 A'_2 A'_3$,$A'_1 A_2 A'_3$,$A'_1 A'_2 A_3$ are equilateral with sides of lengths $x_0, x_1, x_2, x_3$.
I am interested in knowing the conditions on $x_0,x_1,x_2,x_3$ that must be satisfied for such a configuration to exist; and how unique the configuration is. This is a preliminary step to understanding this Question on Octahedra
and the answer by @Blue.
Clearly it is necessary that $x_i>0$ for each $i$; and by using the triangle inequality on the other four faces, that $x_i+x_j>x_k$ for every 3-set ${i,j,k}subset {0,1,2,3}$.
Question 1: are these conditions sufficient for existence? I think so, but have only a hand-waving argument and would like something better.
It seems to me that if such a configuration exists for some $x_0,x_1,x_2,x_3$ then in general if we fix $A_2, A_3, A'_1, A'_2, A'_3$ there are two points $A_1$ which satisfy the right conditions, giving a convex octahedron and a non-convex one. Again I can only wave my hands, and my intuition may be wrong. So,
Question 2: what can be proved about uniqueness?
Lastly, to get some feeling for which $(x_0,x_1, x_2,x_3)$ yield an octahedron, I would like to understand their geometry.
Question 3: Describe geometrically the (subset of) the solid bounded by
begin{align*}
x_0+x_1+x_2+x_3&=1;&\
x_i&=0, &i=0,dots,3; \
x_i+x_j&=x_k &textrm{ for every 3-set } {i,j,k}subset {0,1,2,3}
end{align*}
which yield solutions.
geometry polyhedra
$endgroup$
Let $A_1, A_2, A_3, A'_1, A'_2, A'_3$ be the vertices of a (not-necessarily convex) octahedron; here $X'$ is the vertex not on an edge with $X$. Suppose that the four non-adjacent triangular faces $A_1 A_2 A_3$, $A_1 A'_2 A'_3$,$A'_1 A_2 A'_3$,$A'_1 A'_2 A_3$ are equilateral with sides of lengths $x_0, x_1, x_2, x_3$.
I am interested in knowing the conditions on $x_0,x_1,x_2,x_3$ that must be satisfied for such a configuration to exist; and how unique the configuration is. This is a preliminary step to understanding this Question on Octahedra
and the answer by @Blue.
Clearly it is necessary that $x_i>0$ for each $i$; and by using the triangle inequality on the other four faces, that $x_i+x_j>x_k$ for every 3-set ${i,j,k}subset {0,1,2,3}$.
Question 1: are these conditions sufficient for existence? I think so, but have only a hand-waving argument and would like something better.
It seems to me that if such a configuration exists for some $x_0,x_1,x_2,x_3$ then in general if we fix $A_2, A_3, A'_1, A'_2, A'_3$ there are two points $A_1$ which satisfy the right conditions, giving a convex octahedron and a non-convex one. Again I can only wave my hands, and my intuition may be wrong. So,
Question 2: what can be proved about uniqueness?
Lastly, to get some feeling for which $(x_0,x_1, x_2,x_3)$ yield an octahedron, I would like to understand their geometry.
Question 3: Describe geometrically the (subset of) the solid bounded by
begin{align*}
x_0+x_1+x_2+x_3&=1;&\
x_i&=0, &i=0,dots,3; \
x_i+x_j&=x_k &textrm{ for every 3-set } {i,j,k}subset {0,1,2,3}
end{align*}
which yield solutions.
geometry polyhedra
geometry polyhedra
asked Dec 26 '18 at 13:16
ancientmathematicianancientmathematician
4,4481513
4,4481513
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
This is not an answer, but just a conjecture about Question 1.
Consider your octahedron "unfolded" on a plane, and in particular its equilateral face $ABC$ of side $x_0$ and its three neighbouring (not equilateral) faces $ABE$, $BCD$, $ACF$ (see diagrams below). We can imagine to "fold" these neighbouring faces (all on the same side of the equilateral face) until $DE=DB$, $DF=CF$ and $FE=AE$. We have then three equations for three unknown parameters (the positions of points $D$, $E$, $F$ along the three circles where they are constrained to lie).
But if you try that with GeoGebra, it turns out that the construction succeeds only if, in the unfolded planar graph, $DEge DB$, $DFge CF$ and $FEge AE$. Thus the first diagram shows a constructible octahedron, while the second one is not constructible, because $DE<DB$. I haven't a proof for that (yet) and would like to know other opinions on this conjecture.
A short comment on Question 3: I think the first condition can always be met by a suitable rescaling, the second one gives a single point and the third one (as written) implies the second one. But maybe I just don't understand what you are asking.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Yes, I think I was mentally folding something that wouldn't join up, I must look again. As to Qn 3: sure, the interesting set is really projective, and eqn 1 is just a way of getting into $mathbb{R}^3$: then we have $4+12$ bounding plane "faces". Plus whatever other restrictions there are.
$endgroup$
– ancientmathematician
Jan 2 at 7:53
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3052935%2foctahedra-with-four-equilateral-faces%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
This is not an answer, but just a conjecture about Question 1.
Consider your octahedron "unfolded" on a plane, and in particular its equilateral face $ABC$ of side $x_0$ and its three neighbouring (not equilateral) faces $ABE$, $BCD$, $ACF$ (see diagrams below). We can imagine to "fold" these neighbouring faces (all on the same side of the equilateral face) until $DE=DB$, $DF=CF$ and $FE=AE$. We have then three equations for three unknown parameters (the positions of points $D$, $E$, $F$ along the three circles where they are constrained to lie).
But if you try that with GeoGebra, it turns out that the construction succeeds only if, in the unfolded planar graph, $DEge DB$, $DFge CF$ and $FEge AE$. Thus the first diagram shows a constructible octahedron, while the second one is not constructible, because $DE<DB$. I haven't a proof for that (yet) and would like to know other opinions on this conjecture.
A short comment on Question 3: I think the first condition can always be met by a suitable rescaling, the second one gives a single point and the third one (as written) implies the second one. But maybe I just don't understand what you are asking.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Yes, I think I was mentally folding something that wouldn't join up, I must look again. As to Qn 3: sure, the interesting set is really projective, and eqn 1 is just a way of getting into $mathbb{R}^3$: then we have $4+12$ bounding plane "faces". Plus whatever other restrictions there are.
$endgroup$
– ancientmathematician
Jan 2 at 7:53
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This is not an answer, but just a conjecture about Question 1.
Consider your octahedron "unfolded" on a plane, and in particular its equilateral face $ABC$ of side $x_0$ and its three neighbouring (not equilateral) faces $ABE$, $BCD$, $ACF$ (see diagrams below). We can imagine to "fold" these neighbouring faces (all on the same side of the equilateral face) until $DE=DB$, $DF=CF$ and $FE=AE$. We have then three equations for three unknown parameters (the positions of points $D$, $E$, $F$ along the three circles where they are constrained to lie).
But if you try that with GeoGebra, it turns out that the construction succeeds only if, in the unfolded planar graph, $DEge DB$, $DFge CF$ and $FEge AE$. Thus the first diagram shows a constructible octahedron, while the second one is not constructible, because $DE<DB$. I haven't a proof for that (yet) and would like to know other opinions on this conjecture.
A short comment on Question 3: I think the first condition can always be met by a suitable rescaling, the second one gives a single point and the third one (as written) implies the second one. But maybe I just don't understand what you are asking.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Yes, I think I was mentally folding something that wouldn't join up, I must look again. As to Qn 3: sure, the interesting set is really projective, and eqn 1 is just a way of getting into $mathbb{R}^3$: then we have $4+12$ bounding plane "faces". Plus whatever other restrictions there are.
$endgroup$
– ancientmathematician
Jan 2 at 7:53
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This is not an answer, but just a conjecture about Question 1.
Consider your octahedron "unfolded" on a plane, and in particular its equilateral face $ABC$ of side $x_0$ and its three neighbouring (not equilateral) faces $ABE$, $BCD$, $ACF$ (see diagrams below). We can imagine to "fold" these neighbouring faces (all on the same side of the equilateral face) until $DE=DB$, $DF=CF$ and $FE=AE$. We have then three equations for three unknown parameters (the positions of points $D$, $E$, $F$ along the three circles where they are constrained to lie).
But if you try that with GeoGebra, it turns out that the construction succeeds only if, in the unfolded planar graph, $DEge DB$, $DFge CF$ and $FEge AE$. Thus the first diagram shows a constructible octahedron, while the second one is not constructible, because $DE<DB$. I haven't a proof for that (yet) and would like to know other opinions on this conjecture.
A short comment on Question 3: I think the first condition can always be met by a suitable rescaling, the second one gives a single point and the third one (as written) implies the second one. But maybe I just don't understand what you are asking.
$endgroup$
This is not an answer, but just a conjecture about Question 1.
Consider your octahedron "unfolded" on a plane, and in particular its equilateral face $ABC$ of side $x_0$ and its three neighbouring (not equilateral) faces $ABE$, $BCD$, $ACF$ (see diagrams below). We can imagine to "fold" these neighbouring faces (all on the same side of the equilateral face) until $DE=DB$, $DF=CF$ and $FE=AE$. We have then three equations for three unknown parameters (the positions of points $D$, $E$, $F$ along the three circles where they are constrained to lie).
But if you try that with GeoGebra, it turns out that the construction succeeds only if, in the unfolded planar graph, $DEge DB$, $DFge CF$ and $FEge AE$. Thus the first diagram shows a constructible octahedron, while the second one is not constructible, because $DE<DB$. I haven't a proof for that (yet) and would like to know other opinions on this conjecture.
A short comment on Question 3: I think the first condition can always be met by a suitable rescaling, the second one gives a single point and the third one (as written) implies the second one. But maybe I just don't understand what you are asking.
answered Jan 1 at 18:08
AretinoAretino
24k21443
24k21443
$begingroup$
Yes, I think I was mentally folding something that wouldn't join up, I must look again. As to Qn 3: sure, the interesting set is really projective, and eqn 1 is just a way of getting into $mathbb{R}^3$: then we have $4+12$ bounding plane "faces". Plus whatever other restrictions there are.
$endgroup$
– ancientmathematician
Jan 2 at 7:53
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yes, I think I was mentally folding something that wouldn't join up, I must look again. As to Qn 3: sure, the interesting set is really projective, and eqn 1 is just a way of getting into $mathbb{R}^3$: then we have $4+12$ bounding plane "faces". Plus whatever other restrictions there are.
$endgroup$
– ancientmathematician
Jan 2 at 7:53
$begingroup$
Yes, I think I was mentally folding something that wouldn't join up, I must look again. As to Qn 3: sure, the interesting set is really projective, and eqn 1 is just a way of getting into $mathbb{R}^3$: then we have $4+12$ bounding plane "faces". Plus whatever other restrictions there are.
$endgroup$
– ancientmathematician
Jan 2 at 7:53
$begingroup$
Yes, I think I was mentally folding something that wouldn't join up, I must look again. As to Qn 3: sure, the interesting set is really projective, and eqn 1 is just a way of getting into $mathbb{R}^3$: then we have $4+12$ bounding plane "faces". Plus whatever other restrictions there are.
$endgroup$
– ancientmathematician
Jan 2 at 7:53
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3052935%2foctahedra-with-four-equilateral-faces%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown