Talk:Compound of five cubes

Alternate compound
Is the alternate non-isogonal compound of five cubes presented notable in any way? I can't find any reference to the object online. – (talk) 16:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I doubt it. I removed the section and added File:Frodelius 5-Cube.png in Compound of four cubes. Watchduck (quack) 22:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I removed it again, after ...A2E9/...6546 has reintroduced it. If this is not original reaearch (which I doubt), it could find its place in an overview called Compounds of cubes. (compare c:Category:Compounds of cubes) --Watchduck (quack) 21:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The octahedrally symmetric 5-cube compound is a notable illustration of the regular 5-cube compound's symmetric transformations, and an example that, in particular, highlights the way in which the regular 5-cube compound's symmetry group is related to octahedral symmetry, through pyritohedral symmetry, via any of its component cubes. This is a non-arbitrary feature of the regular 5-cube compound's geometry. If the article is intended to be about only the regular compound of five cubes, then the octahedrally symmetric compound remains directly related to the regular compound of 5 cubes in particular. It certainly has significantly less relation to a compound of 3 tetrahedra. The article also is here to inform people of what a "compound of five cubes" is; not solely what the "regular compound of five cubes" is; hence the article's name, and also why, for example, the "dodecahedron" article is similarly not about only the "regular dodecahedron", which is itself a separate article. This is also in-keeping with a number of other articles on compound solids, and with articles on geometric solids in general, where, even when focused on a specific example, their extended geometric properties and geometric relations to other solids and symmetries are still noted in the articles. The purpose of the article is to provide a reader with information they might be looking for by searching for "compound of five cubes", which certainly includes pointing to more examples than only the regular compound of 5 cubes. There also isn't a prescriptive reason for this article being about solely the regular compound of 5 cubes. That is an arbitrary opinion that the article isn't obliged to reflect. And arbitrarily implementing that limit does not serve to improve the quality or contents of this article. And again, even fully taking that to be the case, the octahedrally symmetric compound illustrates an aspect of the regular 5-cube compound's symmetry group.


 * (If somebody is able to render a 3D animation of this, that would likely better reflect this feature of the regular 5-cube compound's geometry than the static image does.)


 * The octahedrally symmetric 5-cube compound was previously added to the compound of 4-cubes article, where it makes sense only as an example of a possible modification. In exactly the same way (as an example of modification), the same compound also fits in this article. And that is in addition to the rest of its reason for inclusion. The modification to the 4-cube compound is also non-continuous addition, while the symmetric transformation between the two 5-cube compounds is a continuous, symmetric transformation. That, plus the fact it is a 5-cube compound makes it fit more strongly in the "compound of 5 cubes" article.


 * If this article needs to be renamed to "regular compound of 5 cubes", then fair enough, but the vandalistic removal of relevant information isn't beneficial to this article, and renaming it in that way, to limits its focus, doesn't match the style of contents of a number of other similar and related articles. And it would also mean another article (analogous to "dodecahedron" versus "regular dodecahedron") would need to be made, which would be superfluous, given their overlap and needless differentiation. One article is more useful. An article listing symmetric compounds of 5 cubes also isn't really necessary.


 * Of additional note:
 * The octahedrally symmetric compound of 5 cubes isn't trivial or without precedent in academic awareness; what it lacks is literature, like many similarly specific solids. Of minimal note (of personal recent recollection), is its presence in a video (although it was not the topic or focus of the video), that was published by mathematician Grant Sanderson, visible here. This is being pointed to to illustrate that it isn't a flippant or trivial discovery being added for no reason. Still, whatever the focus of the article, this is relevant information to the regular compound's geometric properties. This clearly isn't an arbitrary addition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.106.20.33 (talk) 11:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I doubt that the "Frodelius 5-cube" is notable enough to justify a detailed description. That 3Blue1Brown used an image of it to illustrate the term symmetry is better than nothing. But I have seen no trace of a non- OR explanation, why this should by anymore than a side-note in Compound of four cubes. That " the symmetric transformation between the two 5-cube compounds is a continuous, symmetric transformation " sounds interesting, but is probably OR. (To be fair, this was mentioned only on the talk page, not in the disputed section of the article.)


 * This article is about the one notable compound of five cubes. Originally the first sentence reflected that:
 * The compound of five cubes is one of the five regular polyhedral compounds. This compound was first described by Edmund Hess in 1876.
 * I just realized, that it was also you who changed that to be more general:
 * A compound of five cubes is is a face-transitive polyhedron compound that is a symmetric arrangement of five cubes. This typically refers to the regular compound of five cubes.
 * I will also change that back to the original sentence. It seems, that no one except you believes this other compound should be here. Unless that changes, I will keep reverting your attempts to advertise the "Frodelius 5-cube". --Watchduck (quack) 12:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)


 * This'll be a bit of a lengthy reply, I'm going to try to explain this a bit better. I'll add a TL;DR at the end.


 * TL;DR: The octahedrally-symmetric 5-cue compound isn't an arbitrary re-addition to the article of an unrelated compound being presented as a new discovery. The symmetry group of the regular 5-cube compound links it - through a continuous, non-deforming transformation of its component cubes rotation about the axes of their and the reference cube's coincident vertices - to octahedral symmetry (in the compound being challenged), through pyritohedral-symmetry. That is a feature of the compound's geometry. Aspects of it are listen in other parts of the article in other ways, but this relationship not stated. If the way the information is presented is a problem, absolutely, I'd encourage presenting it better. Probably you know those standards better than me, but I do very strongly believe the information that was added and then removed is information now missing from this article that belongs there, on the topic of the article. And if the only thing you want is literature, that does seem bizarrely stringent for an extra bit of information on this compound, and if that really is where you draw the line, then the article lacks information unless some mathematicians out there want to write formal literature on it. Either way, it definitely makes more sense included as a side-note here than in the 4-cube compound article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.106.20.33 (talk) 16:14, 30 December 2021 (UTC)


 * This answer is indeed absurdly long.
 * Concerning "advertise", "contraption" etc.: Your changes to this article could be interpreted more benevolently than I did. If you were a user with a general interest in improving geometry articles, I would be more inclined to do that. But I can't help but notice that all your edits aim at adding this compound to this article. That makes you seem more like the kind of user who wants to push their pet issue into other peoples faces.
 * Anyway, somewhere in that oversized answer you could have mentioned, that the rotation angle is 2*arctan((sqrt(5)-2)/sqrt(3)). That was a bit of a pain to calculate.
 * I have made some illustrations of that transition, which can be found on Commons. I will add other images, including animations.
 * This is indeed quite cute, and I would not mind adding an animated picture of the transition to this article.
 * I just realized, that the Wolfram article Cube 5-Compound shows a tiny picture of your compound, and calls it "first cube 4-compound".
 * The cube 5-compound can be inscribed on the vertices of an augmented dodecahedron, (first) cube 4-compound [...] Deltoidal Hexecontahedron [...]
 * I think that justifies a short section in Compound of four cubes. I would not add a "can be inscribed" list to this article. --Watchduck (quack) 02:55, 31 December 2021 (UTC)


 * all your edits
 * From this IP address. Maybe this point might need a clarifying, because of the impression there seems to be of the editing. I use a VPN, and have to change my settings to be able to contribute to Wikipedia articles. All the edits from this current IP would be only the edits I've done today, yes. I try to improve articles on mathematical topics every so often, when I notice room for it. My IP address isn't permanent, because of the security settings I use, and, because I don't make edits extremely often, all those other edits wouldn't end up being attributed to this current IP address (which is on top of other internet stuff; not important). Don't worry, I respect all the normal rules, including blocks. The quick point is that this editing wasn't some random one-off overzealousness, which seems to have been the impression. I completely get why it would appear to be that.
 * " That makes you seem more like the kind of user who... "
 * To you, which - if that is still the impression you have, given the VPN clarification - I'm alright with being the case as well as the opinion of my reply being "absurdly long" and an "oversized answer". I am still trying to steer away from that kind of an interpersonal stuff, though. I was mostly trying to avoid miscommunication as best as possible. There seemed to be a lot, on my side too, regarding the purpose of what the information was describing, in relation to the scope of the article's topic. It seemed the correct place for the information in question. I think an understanding is being reached now, in that the symmetry transformations could be presented more concisely, and it made more clear how this symmetry transformation is directly related to the symmetry group of the regular 5-cube compound, rather than it being presented in a way that could give it the impression of being a standalone, other compound mentioned aside for no particular reason. The animations would obviously be sufficient in conveying it. Rendering those images and animations is without my wheelhouse, so I considered the prewritten, text-based description of the nature of that geometry serviceable. Definitely the animations would convey that property of this geometry in way less space. I very much appreciate the rendering of the transition in the Wikipedia commons. The fact this transitional symmetry relationship now has extant visual demonstrations is a significant contribution to insight on the topic, and that is the core of why I considered the text version worth re-addeding. It is appreciated. A simple animation showing the transitional relationship of the symmetry groups does seem an ideal solution to what should fit in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.106.20.33 (talk) 05:32, 31 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I have added a section in Compound of four cubes, and a picture of the animation in the See also section of this article.
 * Would you mind if I put the non-TL;DR part of your long answer in a collapsible box (like I did here)? --Watchduck (quack) 13:23, 1 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I would not mind. By all means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.106.20.33 (talk) 21:31, 1 January 2022 (UTC)