User:Tomruen/archive10

Pentagram of Venus

   At User talk:Fuzzypeg#Pentagram of Venus i communicated in more detail to the contributor of the most recent version of Pentagram#Pentagram of Venus about my concern that that section needs to become an independent page (and be linked from the Pentagram article). You also may want to consider commenting at Talk:Pentagram#Omnibunstrosity.
--Jerzy•t 01:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

wiki/Talk:Star_polygon/Gallery

Hi, I found your images. Great. WHat software do you use ? I have made similar images as a description of rotation maps. The source code you can find at the image page or here - newest version. Have a nice day. --Adam majewski (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I wrote my own 2d geometry editor in Java, and scripting access via JavaScript. Sometimes I'll use Inkscape also for SVG post-processing. Tom Ruen (talk) 02:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

p.s. You should use attribute grouping, like <g style="font-family:Arial; font-size:20; stroke:#FF0000; fill:#FF0000;"> ... </g> for your SVG common elements. Tom Ruen (talk) 02:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you.

I noticed you've been an important contributor / author for the articles on Platonic and Archimedean solids. I wanted to thank you for the images and information you've contributed, and also for being good at guiding newcomers. We need more like you. Thanks. -- 174.152.177.34 (talk) 03:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. It's been my privilege to help here. Tom Ruen (talk) 03:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Onus

I understand you are passionately in favour of including those books, but you are wrong to say that the default is the status quo. All content likely to be challenged, must be discussed and gain consensus. Anything else would be a POV-pusher's charter. All anyone would have to do is drop some crap in an article, then forever after they can claim it's the status quo. I find it disappointing that you are so insistent on promoting these books. Guy (Help!) 16:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

My passion is context. If people are using a name "flower of life", I think it is pointless to try to hide the source, however passionate you are to hide things you find offensive. Tom Ruen (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

E8

Your file File:4 21 t0 E8.svg

Well its amazing. I'm working on a revised standard model of particle physics. Your file fits I think. Every red dot is a particle. Does that make any sense to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucky1111111 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

That's an exceptionally simple theory of everything. Tom Ruen (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

NewScientist

Hi Tom, There's an article in NewScientist that I thought you might find interesting. nagualdesign 13:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Nice! Too bad they didn't use the newest one. And now I know your name. I hope the pretty graphics help the astronomer's imaginings going long enough to find the real thing! I wish they'd not raise our hopes so much! A few months!? If its real, I'm betting we'll find it in dozens of existing photos, once we back-calculate its orbit. Tom Ruen (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Would you like to put an imaginary wager on when they'll find it? I'll bet you a i£1,000 that it won't be this year. nagualdesign 20:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

No, I think we're on the same side of that bet. I like sure thing bets myself. My favorite ironic scenerio is that the pattern is coincidental, and we eventually confirm that by finding hundreds of other outer bodies in more randomized positions, BUT perhaps there really is something big, lurking in the darkness that we'll find by accident, because of this newest search for planet 9/X. Tom Ruen (talk) 21:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Planet Nine Path through Orion

The GAN is asking for more specific info about the chosen path. Is it the mean, the median, the line of best fit? Please let me know. Thanks. Serendi^podous 10:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The path given represents the position and path shown in the Artistic conception [1], and the same as shown in our version of it. That is, the exact opposition position in the sky of the sun in the artistic image. I admit a better diagram might show a full set of simulated paths, similar to diagrams here [2] although it looks like none of those are pure RA/Declination plots. There is a full sky RA/Dec plot in this video/time, [3] showing the paths (sinusoidal gray areas) and Mike Brown points out that Orion is where it is most likely now. I can't remember if I've seen such a plot exactly, but it would be hard to reproduce. Mostly I thought my simple image would help convey a sense of approximately where it might be, and how it would be moving. A better version would show a wide gray area of varied orbits. Tom Ruen (talk) 12:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

March 1932 lunar eclipse Rating

I rated the page March 1932 lunar eclipse as a stub and of low importance. 78.148.76.115 (talk) 16:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I maybe found the symmetry of...

...Gyrated triangular prismatic honeycomb and Elongated alternated cubic honeycomb. Would you verify these? --Nikayama NDos (talk) 13:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nikayama NDos, looks like a worthy guess. They are legal Coxeter notation, correct as subgroups of [4,4,2,∞]. I don't have any sources for the gyrated or elongated forms for 3D. The only "safe" ones I can do are pure Wythoff constructions or alternations since those are extracted directly from Coxeter diagrams. It would also be useful to get International symbol space groups for all of these. Tom Ruen (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Ed Whitlock

I am not sure if I am following the correct protocol, I'm not an expert. I have a couple of concerns about the edit you did to the page for Ed whitlock recently. I. For the the M65 marathon record you have selected my best time for that age group correctly but then that appears on the page as a world record, which is incorrect, the record holder is Derek Turnbull 2:41:57. 2. You list my recent time for 1 mile on the track M85 as a world record. While this time is superior to the existing record it has not been ratified. As a general principle I don't think records should be attributed on Wikipedia until they are ratified and particularly in this case as there is considerable doubt it will be accepted because of track certification issues. I have greater confidence that another mile race I ran 3 days later will be accepted although in a slightly slower time. I appreciate what I think must have taken a fair bit of time to do the edit. Ed 04:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)366EWBW (talk)

I replied here Talk:Ed_Whitlock. Tom Ruen (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Again Tom I'm not sure if I am doing this right, if not my apologies. In your latest edit to my page you have put my recent 5000m in as a road record it was in fact on the track. The performance will need WMA ratification before it is official, similar to the mile. I think it is best to wait until the records are ratified before posting but if you think otherwise I'm OK with that as long as it is noted as pending.

Ed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.218.46 (talk) 04:18, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

"Completely characterized"

Hi Tomruen,

At complex polytope I added the sentence "The regular complex polytopes have been completely characterized" to the lead. I know that this is true for their symmetry groups (the Shephard groups), but I wanted to check that you believe it is also true for the regular polytopes. (My interest here starts with the reflection groups, and I don't actually know that much about the polytopes themselves.) And (if my understanding is right) the tables you've created cover most (all?) of the exceptional examples that are not part of the infinite family. Does this sound right?

Thanks, JBL (talk) 23:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm appreciative for your efforts. Yes, all the real regular polytopes arise from linear diagram Coxeter groups, fully enumerated. The tables include all the finite regular complex polytopes to C4, and yes, just 3 infinite series families above that, Coxeter calls α_n for real simplex, and generalized hypercube/cross-polytopes: γ^m
_p, β^m
_p. Coxeter has one more table of complex regular honeycombs, finite set except 2 families δ^m
_p, and 2{4}r{4}2. Tom Ruen (talk) 23:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Great, thanks! And thank you also for all your work on the article! --JBL (talk) 23:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

p.s. Is this you? http://math.umn.edu/~jblewis/ I live in Minnesota too. Tom Ruen (talk) 01:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Small world! :-) --JBL (talk) 01:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Quarter hyperbolic honeycomb table listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Quarter hyperbolic honeycomb table. Since you had some involvement with the Quarter hyperbolic honeycomb table redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Stefan2 (talk) 18:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Video games with hyperbolic geometry

I recently have found that there are ones already... Maybe they should be linked into wikipedia articles, but I don't quite understand where. Alliumnsk (talk) 04:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I can't say. I assume you mean video games that don't already have Wikipedia articles. If they have an article you could link at Hyperbolic_geometry#See_also Tom Ruen (talk) 05:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know any with Wikipedia articles, but this is very cool! Double sharp (talk) 14:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

If we're not just talking games, there's Jeff Week's http://geometrygames.org/CurvedSpaces . The Not knot movie from the 1990s was the origin of that. Tom Ruen (talk) 19:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Broken diagrams?

Hi Tom,

Something funny is happening with some of the Coxeter-type diagrams on the complex polytope article -- as you can see in the image (click to embiggen), many of the diagrams are breaking into multiple lines.

On my current set-up, this happens on the tables in the following sections:

• Enumeration of regular complex 4-polytopes
• Enumeration of regular complex 5-polytopes and higher
• Regular complex 4-honeycombs

I've also seen the behavior on other systems (mobile, different browsers, etc) but I don't know if in exactly the same places. Do you have any idea how to fix this?

Thanks, JBL (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Joel, yes, basically the table is too wide for your display. Ideally the graphic sequences wouldn't break like that, but I'm not sure how to change that. I've been making some of the tables less wide to help. Tom Ruen (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

3rd stellation of icosidodecahedron, pentagon facets (stellation diagram)

(Regarding one of your images on the page List of Wenninger polyhedron models)

(List of Wenninger polyhedron models - stellations of icosidodecahedron) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20J92 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I've been using your images there to stellate icosidodecahedra, but I realized that the aforementioned stellation diagram was incorrect.

I want to correct it, but I'm not sure if it's permissible to upload screenshots from Sketchup (which is the software I use for polyhedron stuff), and besides, the quality wouldn't be consistent with your other images on that page.

Edit: Also, the 17th stellation of the icosidodecahedron, triangle facets, should be red instead of yellow.

Thank you very much for creating those stellation diagrams, by the way. They've proved invaluable (that's good) to helping me understand stellations.

Regards, 20J92 (talk) 09:01, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Which images specifically? The images were made from this applet at http://bulatov.org/polyhedra/stellation_applet/, if you'd like to check there. It's possible stellations were wrongly selected. Tom Ruen (talk) 12:02, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

The stellation diagram for the pentagon facets of the icosidodecahedron's 3rd stellation.

This is the image currently on the page (3rd stellation)

File:Third stellation of icosidodecahedron pentfacets (new).png160px
This is what the diagram should look like

Also, the stellation diagram for the triangle facets of the icosidodecahedron's 17th stellation. (The placement is right, but they should be red instead of yellow.)

My browser won't let me run the applet, so I don't know where the error originated.

Regards, 20J92 (talk) 00:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't reply. I'm not sure where the errors are. Magnus Wenninger's book Polyhedron Models, should be the standard, unless there's an error there also!? Bulatov's applet might also be a source of error, and it might define things differently. Tom Ruen (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying,

I think the most likely source of error is Bulatov's applet. Here's a more in-depth explanation of the error. https://drive.google.com/open?id=1qmVAgep4iozTWK1j_k0Op4PFJ8v8ituiVjz-BqwWKo4

I doubt we can edit the applet, but I used Photoshop to make correct diagrams and I uploaded them, so perhaps we could use them if we got the copyright stuff right.

Trust me, I used the diagrams you provided to recreate every one of those stellations (not for nitpicky reasons, I was just trying to add polyhedra to my library), and two of those diagrams need correcting. 20J92 (talk) 05:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Sure. If you'd like to update, be my guest. The existing diagrams like File:Third_stellation_of_icosidodecahedron_pentfacets.png can be recolored in MSPaint as well. Tom Ruen (talk) 07:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

All right! I'll upload new versions of the file to the existing ones (and nominate the ones I originally uploaded for deletion). Thanks for helping me with this! 20J92 (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Images

Tom, if you want to mess substantially with my images on the Commons, please upload your own alternatives and do not abandon my own intent. Thank you. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Your request is unclear. Are you saying I should make copies and remove your version from an article? Can you tell me what's wrong with my changes? I belived they added clarity. Tom Ruen (talk) 13:35, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I am saying, if you wish to upload a substantially altered version to the Commons, do not do so as an update to the original, but instead upload it as a new image. I posted here because your Commons talk page advised me to.

The image to be used in any Wikipedia article is different issue, but while I am here I can say that the warnings remain about drawing lines or colouring in plane regions which are not in themselves structural elements of the figure depicted: that has to be done as carefully and as minimally as possible in order for the supposed added "clarity" not to add to the common misconception instead. For example the criticism I made of your perspective projections applies - no drawing should emphasise both the lines and the plane regions as the end effect is to present a bounded real polygon to the eyeball, precisely the effect we need to avoid.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:08, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Facet defining equations of regular dodecahedron

If the facet defining equations should describe a dodecahedron with cartesian coordinates given in the paragraph before, I suppose they do not have the right scale! It can be easily checked that the distance of two parallel planes described by these equations is $2r_{i}={\frac {2}{\sqrt {\phi ^{4}+\phi ^{2}}}}={\frac {2}{\phi ^{2}{\sqrt {3-\phi }}}}$ and the edge length $a={\frac {2}{\phi ^{4}}}$. However faces of a dodecahedron with edge length $a={\frac {2}{\phi }}$ are obviously defined by the following equations

ϕx ± y = ±ϕ²

ϕy ± z = ±ϕ²

ϕz ± x = ±ϕ²

or with arbitrary edge length $a$

ϕx ± y = ±aϕ³/2

ϕy ± z = ±aϕ³/2

ϕz ± x = ±aϕ³/2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by StefanDoc (talk • contribs) 13:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I moved your comment to Talk:Regular dodecahedron. Tom Ruen (talk) 13:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Pentakis Dodecahedron net

Can we get a copy of the CAD file used to make this? My daughter is using it for art and i need to measure the precise angles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.130.107.253 (talk) 20:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

This image? File:Pentakisdodecahedron_net.png? I'm not sure what a CAD file is. This is just a 2D picture. Tom Ruen (talk) 05:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I made one of these polyhedra with Sketchup. Each isosceles triangle has two angles of ≈55.6925° and one angle of 68.615°. Also, if the base of the triangle has length 1, then the other edges will have length ≈0.8871. These numbers aren't precise, but they've got some precision... will this suffice? 20J92 (talk) 06:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Complex polytope

You failed to respond to my edit-comment request to discuss your recent edit on the article talk page, and instead overrode my reversion in clear disregard of WP:BRD. I hope that you will now feel able to read my comments on the talk page and reach consensus before returning to your warring edits. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I assumed your objection was to "The body of _p{} can be represented by the open region of a real regular p-gon." so I removed that. Feel free to discuss what better fits your understanding. Tom Ruen (talk) 14:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:B5 Coxeter plane graphs2

Template:B5 Coxeter plane graphs2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 22:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Compound of two snub cubes

Hi Tom,

First of all, thanks for the extensive contributions you've made to Wikipedia. A few days ago, I made a correction to the page at Compound_of_two_snub_cubes. I checked back today and discovered that the revision had been undone, so I would like to ask you about it.

This is the first time I've ever edited anything on Wikipedia so I apologize up front if I don't get the protocol quite right. After posting my question to you here, I realized there is also a talk tab for the page in question, so I am going to pose the question there too. Sorry for the double posting.

The thing I edited was the formula for the tribonacci constant. The formula shown on the page I edited has "17" in two places, but the formula on Generalizations_of_Fibonacci_numbers and MathWorld both have a "19" in the same two places. In addition, I worked out the math using "19" and verified that the result is approximately 0.543689 as the page indicates it should be. Given that two other reputable sources give the same formula except that they use "19", and the fact that the math works out with "19" rather than "17", I assumed that the "17" was merely a typo and so I corrected it.

Since my revision has been undone, I was wondering if you have any insight as to the reason. Was it because I didn't edit the page correctly, or are my math and the sources that I cited all incorrect?

Thanks for your help in correcting or clarifying the mistake, and thanks again for all you other contributions.

David

2601:C2:8300:229B:D515:F39D:1321:D7DB (talk) 01:33, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

What I did is plug in your solution[4] and found ${\sqrt[{3}]{-19+3{\sqrt {33}}}}$ failed, that is $-19+3{\sqrt {33}}<0$, while while the formula $\xi ^{3}+\xi ^{2}+\xi =1$ was true with with the original value, computed as ξ=0.543689012693. Tom Ruen (talk) 01:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I also see the snub article says "ξ is the reciprocal of the tribonacci constant", so that's why it is 0.54... rather than 1.8... so the given equation is a bit different too. Tom Ruen (talk) 02:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply Tom. I just realized that you replied at the talk page too, so I'll move this reply there and continue the discussion on that page instead of here.Talk:Compound_of_two_snub_cubes

I'm not sure why $-19+3{\sqrt {33}}<0$ is a problem. Did you perhaps take a square root instead of a cube root? The cube root of a negative number is still a valid real number even though it's negative. Taking the reciprocal doesn't change the constant values under the radicals. It just changes :${\frac {1}{3}}{\left(1+{\sqrt[{3}]{19-3{\sqrt {33}}}}+{\sqrt[{3}]{19+3{\sqrt {33}}}}\right)}\approx 1.83929.$ to :$3/{\left(1+{\sqrt[{3}]{19-3{\sqrt {33}}}}+{\sqrt[{3}]{19+3{\sqrt {33}}}}\right)}\approx 0.543689.$

Substituting $17$ for both instances of $19$ in the tribonacci constant results in incorrect values $\approx 1.210355...$ as calculated by Wolfram Alpha at [5] and $\approx 0.8262...$ for the reciprocal, [6]

The values shown at Wolfram Alpha indicate that 19, not 17 is the correct constant. See [7], and for the reciprocal, [8]

BTW, Snub cube also lists the constants as 19, not 17.

Sorry to play dumb, but my calculator says $(-8)^{1/3}=1+i{\sqrt {3}}$, a complex number, even if -2 is also a cube root. How do we decide which root to take? It would seem foolish to leave a negative number under the radical. Tom Ruen (talk) 03:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

It would appear that ${\frac {1}{3}}\left({\sqrt[{3}]{17+3{\sqrt {33}}}}-{\sqrt[{3}]{-17+3{\sqrt {33}}}}-1\right)$ = $3/{\left(1+{\sqrt[{3}]{19-3{\sqrt {33}}}}+{\sqrt[{3}]{19+3{\sqrt {33}}}}\right)}$ =0.543689012693. So there is no contradiction?

But your edit was wrong: $\xi ={\frac {1}{3}}\left({\sqrt[{3}]{19+3{\sqrt {33}}}}-{\sqrt[{3}]{-19+3{\sqrt {33}}}}-1\right)$. You can't change a 17 to 19 and get the same answer. Tom Ruen (talk) 03:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Tom,

OK. I think you've convinced me for now that they are equivalent although it's not at all obvious when I look at the two sides of the equation. The mistake I made was that I thought you had simply substituted 17 for 19 in the formula that other pages cite as the tribonacci constant formula, as you point out, you can't change a 17 to 19 and get the same answer (or the reciprocal). Now I see that I obviously overlooked a couple of sign changes that significantly affect the end result. It looks like the result is the same, although I want to look at it again tomorrow when I'm more awake. If they are in fact the same, do you think it's worthwhile to list both equations as equivalent formulas for the reciprocal of the tribonacci constant, if for no other reason than to avoid the type of mistake I made when comparing this derivation to other references that use the "19" formula? Thanks for your patience in working through all of this with me.

David 2601:C2:8300:229B:D515:F39D:1321:D7DB (talk) 04:33, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

It is certainly unexpected. That's why I just plugged in numbers. I'm not sure who added the coordinates, but you could look. It would make more sense to define the coordinates by tribonacci constant directly, rather than the reciprical, just like snub cube. But perhaps the reciprical form should be listed at tribonacci constant, and if anyone can explain the 17-19 coincidence it would be a good place for it. Tom Ruen (talk) 05:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I added the reciprical expression here too: Generalizations_of_Fibonacci_numbers#Tribonacci_numbers. Tom Ruen (talk) 05:13, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the 17-19 coincidence is quite unexpected. It makes more sense to specify it at Generalizations_of_Fibonacci_numbers#Tribonacci_numbers as you did rather than on every page that uses it, but I think the simpler reciprocal derivation should be listed along with yours, precisely because it's not obvious that they are equivalent. Therefore, I added the more obvious reciprocal formula in addition to your edit, just to point out that they are both equivalent. Maybe someone can eventually expound on why.

2601:C2:8300:229B:D515:F39D:1321:D7DB (talk) 05:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Translations from German

What about sources and categories?Xx236 (talk) 12:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

No interwiki.Xx236 (talk) 12:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I was lazy, going through a list of globular clusters, looking for apparent diameters. How do you connect interwiki? Tom Ruen (talk) 12:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Left side down - Languages. Xx236 (talk) 12:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, still too lazy, didn't seem simple to connect. Tom Ruen (talk) 12:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Add links

de

name Xx236 (talk) 12:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Too bad they made it more complicated. There should be an option to just match all identical titles in all languages. I don't care enough. Tom Ruen (talk) 12:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

It happens that similar words have different meanings.Xx236 (talk) 14:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)