Talk:Kepler–Poinsot polyhedron

Untitled
The definition is unclear. The term "regular polyhedron" is not defined, and it is not clear whether different polygons may be used as faces. AxelBoldt 16:49, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Why has this page been redirected to just "Kepler solid" rather than the correct name "Kepler-Poinsot solid"? I haven't heard anyone refer to these as just the Kepler solids. I think it should be changed, but it seems so odd that maybe there is a reason for it.

Also, I will change the term "lesser stellated dodecahedron" to "small stellated dodecahedron", which is really the only name by which this model is known today. And "greater dodecahedron" to just "great dodecahedron".

Complex polygons?
Where does the term complex polygon come from? I have done a fair bit of geometry, and the only 'complex polygons' I have come across are those where the polygonal boundary is in several separate parts, creating holes in the figure. I have never seen it used to describe selfintersecting polygons. Please either give a reference to this usage or change the wording. Steelpillow 22:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll copy this comment to complex polygon, and change the link here to nonconvex polygon. Tom Ruen


 * Oops! I got ambitious. Hopefully better all around! Tom Ruen 00:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

History
Some of the history looks a little inaccurate:

Jamnitzer's 'stellated dodecahedron' does not have the face planes aligning from arm to arm - there is no evidence that he understands it as a dodecahedron. Nor is there any evidence that he understands this or his 'great dodecahedron' as being regular.

Uccello is sometimed credited with a marble tarsia, depicting a small stellated dodecahedron, in the floor of St. Mark's Basilica, Venice. But did he ever 'draw' one as the page says? Please either provide a reference or replace the comment with the tarsia (illustrated in Cromwell).

Poinsot used a definition of convexity, under which all these figures and their faces are convex (no concave vertices, y'see). This definition stuck for many decades. I am not sure when the modern usage arose, but is it worth noting the change?

I have a bit more to add when/if I get the time, eg Cauchy confirmed that Poinsot's list was complete, and Bertrand obtained them by facetting the Platonic solids. Steelpillow 20:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the look! I only sectioned the History information unchanged since I didn't take time to confirm or add to to it. Feel free to expand, or correct as you can. Tom Ruen 20:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. Enjoy. Steelpillow 12:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Different shadows of the same four dimensional object

 * I can't say I followed much of what you're saying but the 10 regular 4-polytopes are given here: Schl%C3%A4fli-Hess_polychoron. Tom Ruen (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * How do you get star polyhedra as shadows of a convex 4D object? —Tamfang (talk) 03:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In other words, the shadow is not the star figure alone, but the whole arrangement of cells, walls and vertices inside the outer hull. For example, here is a 2D shadow of a rhombic pyramid:

o    /|\ / | \  /  |  \  o---o---o \ |  /    \ | /     \|/      o


 * The outer rhomb is as much a part of the shadow as any of the four triangles. Clearly, if we rotate the pyramid we will get a different shadow. The two 3D shadows under discussion are bounded respectively by a regular icosahedron and a regular dodecahedron. The star figures exist inside them as cell complexes and not as Kepler-Poinsot (i.e. regular) polyhedra: the star figure comprises the regular core plus the outer pyramids as separate polyhedra (all buried within the overall shadow), and the long star "edges" actually comprise three distinct but collinear edges of different lengths. This is really the wrong article for this topic, but there you go. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This relationship between the stellated dodecahedra I have brought up almost 10 years ago is better seen than described, so I made some images. (And I hid my verbal description in boxes.)

The definition of the stellated dodecahedra as augmentations of dodecahedron and icosahedron is still quite common, although more of historical relevance. (See Hull and core discussion below.) Also building the great dodecahedron by adding a layer of irregular tetrahedra to the small stellated dodecahedron is described in Polyhedra by Peter R. Cromwell (p. 265). (I wonder what is on the next two pages, hidden in the preview.)

I doubt that I am the first one to recognize the topological equivalence between the two cell arrangements. Maybe someone knows a source, and maybe someone knows real names for what I filled with Foo and Bar.

Here is a lower dimensional equivalent: The Foo skeleton of the pentagram is topoligically equivalent to the pentagonal antiprism. It is the Bar inversion of itself.

Greetings, Watchduck (quack) 15:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

false elements
I reckon the small stellated dodecahedron has false vertices or false edges but not both. If the concave part of an edge is false, its ends must coincide with ends of the true edges, which must thus be true vertices. So let's use another figure for the examples.

The great stellated dodecahedron has uncontroversially false edges, but they are all hidden. The great icosahedron and great dodecahedron have visible false edges and false vertices. —Tamfang (talk) 05:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That was my bad. Well spotted, thanks. Hopefully I have now corrected it. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm satisfied. —Tamfang (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

density
I'd like to see pictures showing how each piece of a face contributes to the density: perhaps a cutaway showing how a ray (through an omnitruncate vertex, for generality's sake) intersects several faces? —Tamfang (talk) 18:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Anton! Good thoughts. For spherical models I figured density can be computed by taking 4PI over the the solid angle of each face, so showing one face starts that, ALTHOUGH pentagram faces apparently contribute double-coverings as well. Anyway for your cut-away approach, it ought to work for convex faces like that at least. Too busy now (offline for 9 days starting Friday), but I'll try something graphical when I get a chance. (Same thing for ALL the nonconvex uniform polyhedra!) :) Tom Ruen (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Small stellated dodecahedron tiling.png my density calculation, consider the Small stellated dodecahedron, there's 12 pentagram faces, one shown here. Each face covers 10 of 60 triangles as shown, BUT by density, each face really covers 15 triangles, with the double-wrapped pentagram covering the central 5 triangles twice. So we have 12 faces each covering 15 of 60 total triangles. 12*15=180, hence a density of 3 (180/60). Okay, I just offered that calculation for myself to confirm what density means for star polygon faces! Tom Ruen (talk) 00:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Great icosahedron cutplane.png
 * Okay, here's a cross-section (Model between two close parallel planes) of the Great icosahedron, a skew orthogonal projection of the plane to show all the paths. The plane does NOT go through the center of the model. I moved it a bit to better show all 7-paths. I could do the pentagonal faced one (great dodecahedron) too. The pentagrams are tougher to show (without more work), since OpenGL doesn't like self-intersecting faces! Tom Ruen (talk) 00:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

polyhedra vs solid
A good move to Kepler–Poinsot polyhedra BUT it really should be singular, like polyhedron and uniform polyhedron and Johnson solid. 21:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Stella octangula?
Couldn't the stellated octahedron, a.k.a. stella octangula or great octahedron, be a spikeball (Kepler-Poinsot solid)? It's non-convex and it has congruent faces and vertices. We've been discussing this on another talk page, but it's been dismissed as "probably original research"... 68.173.113.106 (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No. As I have told you in another discussion, it is not a polyhedron, it is a polyhedral compound. The Kepler-Poinsot solids are all individual polyhedra. I'd stop wasting your time on this idea if I were you. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Regular polyhedra
The definition of Regular polyhedron does not match with the definition given here: There is says that a regular polyhedron has to be vertex transitive, and these aren't vertex transitive (the number of edges meeting in a vertex depends on the vertex). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.116.84.155 (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No, these are vertex-transitive, but edge-intersections look like vertices. These images show balls on the real vertices. Tom Ruen (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Small stellated dodecahedron.png|240px]]
 * [[Image:Great icosahedron.png|240px]]
 * [[Image:Great stellated dodecahedron.png|240px]]
 * [[Image:Great dodecahedron.png|240px]]
 * }
 * For ths reason, edge intersections are sometimes called "false vertices". &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Stellation cores
Would it be helpful to add a column for "stellation core" to the summary diagram? It is "icosahedron" for the GI, "dodecahedron" for the other three. And maybe also for the convex hull? Maproom (talk) 11:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Hull and core of the stellated dodecahedra
In this section I wrote:

The small and great stellated dodecahedron can be seen as a dodecahedron and an icosahedron with their edges extended until they intersect.

Now you added:

However, this approach only accurately gives the internal structure for the small stellated dodecahedron, as the great stellated dodecahedron is in fact a stellated great dodecahedron and not a [stellated] icosahedron (although the great dodecahedron does share the vertices and edges of the icosahedron, it does not share its faces). (my addition in brackets)

So is the following statement right or wrong? (statement 1) "The great stellated dodecahedron can be seen as an icosahedron with its edges extended until they intersect." If it is wrong it should not be in the article. If it is right, there is no need to correct it in the following sentence.

Your statement on Talk:Golden ratio adds context:

I think it would be better there if we used the actual great dodecahedron {5, 5/2} as the core of {5/2, 3} instead of the icosahedron which shares its vertices and edges. Then the stellation sequence of {5, 3} is shown more clearly, passing through {5/2, 5} and {5, 5/2} on the way to the final stellation {5/2, 3}.

That we "use" something as the core of the great stellated dodecahedron seems strange to me. So, according to you, are the following statements true of false respectively?

(statement 2) "The icosahedron is the core of the great stellated dodecahedron." (statement 3) "The great dodecahedron is the core of the great stellated dodecahedron."

Your write: (statement 4) "The great stellated dodecahedron is in fact a stellated great dodecahedron and not a [stellated] icosahedron."

That is correct within the terminology proposed by Conway. So? How does that imply that statements 1 and 2 are wrong?

What you are silently claiming here is (statement 5) "A is the core of B, iff (in Conway's terminology) B is the stellation of A." And, more importantly, that this is the only legitimate way to use the word core in the context of Kepler-Poinsot polyhedra.

But the following statement is just as legitimate: (statement 6) "The Kepler star in Oslo is an example of a great stellated dodecahedron. It has an icosahedral core and 20 pyramids over its faces."

It seems to me like you are silently declaring Conway and his terminology the single source of truth about what a Kepler-Poinsot polyhedron is and is not. But this article is about geometrical shapes that are known since hundreds of years, and not only about some mathematician's specific way to define them.

So I suggest to keep statements specific to Conway's operational terminology in the section dedicated to it. Watchduck (quack) 20:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I am claiming that (1) gets you the correct edges of {5/2, 3} but not the correct faces (considering the different results of stellating {3, 5, and that (2) is wrong because if you look inside a {5/2, 3}, you will see the face planes of {5, 5/2} hiding inside, and if you look deeper inside those of {5, 3}, but not those of {3, 5}. {3, 5/2} has a real icosahedral core, but {5/2, 3} does not. By the definition of core for stellations, which is not unique to Conway's use incidentally, both (2) and (3) are wrong, because the core of {5/2, 3} is instead the much smaller dodecahedron at its centre.
 * The problem inherent here is the same as that which we encounter for pentagrams. Are we to interpret them as five-sided polygons whose sides intersect, or as ten-sided polygons with alternating acute and reflex angles? A Flatlander encountering a regular pentagram would be unable to distinguish it from such a concave decagon, because he cannot look inside the polygon and see its internal structure. He knows that one is regular while the other is not, because only the first has equal sides and equal angles, but he has no way to distinguish which he is seeing. We on the other hand, living in the third dimension, can see the difference. I think you'll agree that when we use the word "pentagram" in the context of regular star polygons, we are implying the regular five-pointed star, not the visually similar concave decagon.
 * Now we go up a dimension, and suddenly we are the ones who have a problem. Let's take {5/2, 5}. The outer surface of the small stellated dodecahedron looks exactly like that of a concave hexecontahedron with sixty isosceles triangles for faces. If a shape visually identical to the small stellated dodecahedron appeared before us, we would have no way of telling if it was the real self-intersecting {5/2, 5}, or the concave hexecontahedron. A hypothetical four-dimensional being could of course see the difference. We also know the difference (the first is regular and the second is not), but we cannot see it. However, when we mention these shapes in the context of regular polyhedra, we are surely implying the regular versions.
 * Now it seems to me that when you describe the Kepler–Poinsot polyhedra under that name, you are treating them as regular polyhedra. That is the whole reason why there are only four such (there must be thousands of concave 60- and 180-hedra with icosahedral symmetry). Not only that, but Kepler considered his polyhedra to be regular because they had regular pentagrams as faces; Poinsot likewise considered his polyhedra to have regular star vertices. So if you are talking about those geometric shapes that were known for hundreds of years, they have all the internal structure that Conway correctly describes, and all the properties we list are correctly based on that. If you are talking about the polyhedra that is produced by erecting pyramids over an icosahedral core until faces occur in coplanar quintuplets – well, it is certainly related to the great stellated dodecahedron {5/2, 3} that looks the same, and it has a place in the article because that is how most models of the great stellated dodecahedron are constructed as a necessary simplification. But it is not a regular polyhedron, it is not a Kepler–Poinsot polyhedron, and if we are discussing the mathematical great stellated dodecahedron, as we happen to be doing in that section, then the properties of this concave hexecontahedron are simply out of scope. So I would replace (6) with "The Kepler star in Oslo is visually identical to the great stellated dodecahedron. It has an icosahedral core and 20 pyramids over its faces." If it really was constructed as a mathematically correct {5/2, 3}, then I would replace it with (7) "The Kepler star in Oslo is an example of a great stellated dodecahedron. It has 12 intersecting pentagrammic faces" (and then I would add something about how it was so constructed; this would only make sense to do if it was transparent, or else you wouldn't see any of the complex goings-on in the interior). But you cannot have it both ways. If the great stellated dodecahedron has Schläfli symbol {5/2, 3}, then an icosahedron with pyramids erected on it is not a great stellated dodecahedron. And if an icosahedron with pyramids erected on it is a great stellated dodecahedron, then it is not the regular polyhedron discovered by Kepler with Schläfli symbol {5/2, 3}.
 * And that brings me to my last point. Saying that the core of the great stellated dodecahedron is an icosahedron is wrong even if you are considering it as a concave hexecontahedron. That implies that the former is a stellation of the latter in the usual sense (more general than Conway's; it simply means extending the edges and faces until they meet again; Coxeter uses the term the same way), which it is not. The only way it is true is if you ignore the faces, simply produce the edges, and then draw in new face. That is a non-standard interpretation of the word "core". Judging from your later remarks about erecting pyramids I think I understand the process you have in mind (usually called augmentation, as in the Johnson solids). But again, that does not produce regular polyhedra. The article is about regular polyhedra, not concave irregular polyhedra that happen to look identical. Since they look identical, and models of the Kepler–Poinsot polyhedra usually are of the latter as you can't see the interior, they have a place in the article when it comes to the appearance of these polyhedra in real life. But I suggest that we keep the article mainly about the mathematical regular polyhedra, and save these approximations for their own section. Double sharp (talk) 02:11, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that this article is mainly about the regular polyhedra as they are defined since the 19th century. But it is also about geometrical figures known since five centuries - which you call "visually identical" to them.


 * I would agree that Pentagram is specifically about {5/2}, while a broader concept is described in Five-pointed star. But e.g. for Enneagram / Nine-pointed star there is only one article. It is mainly about {9/2} etc., but also about the Bahá'í symbol. And it should be - despite the fact that the latter is actually an 18-gon. Kepler–Poinsot polyhedron is like Enneagram in that respect - broad and specific are in the same article. So some care has to be taken to avoid misunderstandings. But some ambiguity can not be avoided.


 * Kepler's two solids don't just originate from augmentations of dodecahedron and icosahedron. It is still common to define them in such terms.


 * Quote from Great Stellated Dodecahedron on Wolfram MathWorld:
 * Another way to construct a great stellated dodecahedron via cumulation is to make 20 triangular pyramids with side length phi (the golden ratio) times the base [...] and attach them to the sides of an icosahedron.


 * Quote from Polyhedra by Peter R. Cromwell (p. 265):
 * The first stellation of the dodecahedron is built from a layer of 12 pyramids. The second stellation of the dodecahedron is built from a layer of 30 wedges.


 * Triakis icosahedron currently lists the gsD as a non-convex variant, and Pentakis dodecahedron lists sD as a non-convex variant.
 * I was surprised to see that it was apparently you who added that statement to the latter article, explicitly calling them topoligically equivalent.
 * The German articles also call the Kepler and Catalan solids topoligically equivalent. Note the German names BTW: Ikosaederstern and Dodekaederstern.


 * I don't think it's ok to call them topolically equivalent. That's inviting misunderstandings, and not avoiding them. But I think it is ok to say that the solid shown above is a or takes the form of an sD. My preferred terminology would be "as pentakis dodecahedron" (while "as {5/2, 5}" should be the default).


 * We have to avoid misunderstandings - but only where they are likely. And using theory to deny the existence of something that can be seen does not help anyone.
 * If you drew a pentagram, pointed at the small pentagon in its center, and asked someone a question about it, you would probably be annoyed if that person instead gave you a sophisticated proof that this pentagon does not even exist.


 * For gI and gD I tend to agree with you, BTW. I find the "gD with inverted pyramids" in triakis icosahedron more questionable than the "gsD with very tall pyramids". And the second sentence in the Cromwell quote more than the first. Greetings, Watchduck (quack) 02:48, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I originally added those "topological equivalences" back when I didn't understand these polyhedra very well; star polyhedra with their self-intersections and partially visible faces look really confusing to a beginner. ^_^ If I were writing that now I'd write that the visible surface of the small stellated dodecahedron is identical to that of a pentakis dodecahedron with pyramids of the right height.
 * Like I said, I think it depends on how you consider these polyhedra to have originated. If we are talking about their early appearances before Kepler, then of course the small and great stellated dodecahedron cannot have been considered as regular polyhedra with pentagrammic faces then. But Kepler considered them as such, and that is why those two polyhedra are given his name. As long as we are considering the external facets, I think this interpretation is appropriate. However, since by describing the core of the stellated dodecahedra we are talking about internal structure, and that is what separates the augmentations from the real Kepler solids, I think we should be considering the regular {5/2, 5} and {5/2, 3} here; there are equally interesting things to say about their relationship to the {5, 3} deep inside them. And I don't see why Poinsot's solids should receive a different treatment from Kepler's, to be honest; the great dodecahedron was also anticipated before Kepler and Poinsot. (The great icosahedron alone seems not to have been anticipated, as it is the only one that cannot be obtained directly from augmenting or excavating {5, 3} and {3, 5}.)
 * I am not saying that the central pentagon in a pentagram does not exist. I am saying that its vertices are not vertices of the pentagram. Similarly, I am not saying that the central dodecahedron in {5/2, 5} does not exist, and indeed I have no problem with our treatment of that polyhedron. What I have a problem with is how we are treating {5/2, 3}, as it really does not have a central icosahedron. Here I am not using theory to deny the existence of something that can be seen; I am using it to deny the existence of something that is not even there. What is there that looks like an icosahedron is in fact a great dodecahedron {5, 5/2}, which as Conway correctly notes has its faces stellated until they meet again to form {5/2, 3}. The face planes of the icosahedron with the same vertices and edges as that {5, 5/2} do not appear in {5/2, 3}; they appear instead in a properly scale {3, 5/2} having that icosahedron as its core. It is precisely because talking about cores implies internal structure that I think we should focus on the real internal structure of the true regular Kepler-Poinsot polyhedra, not the polyhedra consisting only of their externally visible parts.
 * Regarding the German names, I'll note that the articles also mention the alternatives Kleines Sterndodekaeder and Großes Sterndodekaeder for {5/2, 5} and {5/2, 3} respectively, which I prefer. I also do not really like how the German article ledes consider the faces to only be the externally visible parts, which as I've said rather misses the point of these solids being considered regular. Double sharp (talk) 16:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I like your latest changes to the article and I think they completely address this problem. I agree with considering the interior {5, 5/2} for {5/2, 3} in the "hull and core" section – it has the same edges and vertices (and hence circumradius) as an appropriately scaled {3, 5}, so the result is the same, but it has the advantage of not allowing quibbling over whether we are considering the externally visible surfaces or the whole regular polyhedron. Also, thank you for all your recent great work on this article! Double sharp (talk) 15:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It took me a while until I got your point.
 * I like the German names, because they help to keep the broad (Ikosaederstern) and the specific concept (Großes Sterndodekaeder = {5/2, 3}) apart. With names like that we would not have talked past each other for as long as we did.
 * The names should be addressed more carefully in the English article. Simply using the Cayley names in a historical context seems rather anachronistic to me. Does anyone know how Poinsot called these solids? Linking the original source would be a good idea anyway. (I did not find a scan online.)
 * This augmentation topic may be more interesting than it seems. The next logical step is to produce gD from sD by adding a layer of irregular tetrahedra, as described in the Cromwell book. I brought it up again in the old four dimensional section above. Watchduck (quack) 16:47, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Usage of nowrap template
What is the real reason for using the template in this article? It is making the article somewhat unreadable or awkwardly readable on mobile browsers, requiring me to scroll horizontally in order to read some full sentences when allowing them to break lines on small screens would just look fine. I would rather remove them and improve mobile readability. &#x200b;‑‑🌀⁠SilSinnAL982100⁠💬 00:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The intention was to make the text more readable by avoiding breaks in sentences, but allowing multiple sentences in the same line.
 * But is too unflexible indeed. I will replace it by, which only avoids line breaks. Watchduck (quack) 22:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That only makes sense in computer browsers, but not on mobile browsers. And there is a growing number of mobile users who would find what you want uncomfortable. For the benefit of mobile wiki readers, line breaks should be allowed and unavoidable, since mobile users are less willing to do horizontal scrolling (it is seriously distracting, to be honest). ‐⁠‑🌀⁠SilSinnAL982100⁠💬 22:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have replaced by  to address that issue. Please take a look at the blue/green examples at Help:Line-break_handling (perma) . If they misbehave in your browser, please bring it up on that talk page. Watchduck (quack) 22:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Great icosahedron without pyramids
The Wolfram article Great Icosahedron shows a construction of this solid that is based on the excavated dodecahedron (calling it "squashed"). But the description rather sounds like the equivalent with convex in place of self-intersecting hexagons. Is there is a relevant relationship between the gI and the excavated dodecahedron or that other solid? And does someone happen to know a name for that thing witht the pentagrams? You might know this. Greetings, Watchduck (quack) 23:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 24 October 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: (non-admin closure) NOT MOVED User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 03:00, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

– WP:PLURAL: there are exactly 4 such objects. D.Lazard (talk) 09:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Kepler–Poinsot polyhedron → Kepler–Poinsot polyhedra
 * Platonic solid → Platonic solids
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:43, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The two requests to move to plural are not uncontroversial. Better to create a move request. Vpab15 (talk) 10:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:PLURAL applies here without any doubt, as, when talking to a unspecified such polyhdron, people use, depending on the case, "star-shaped regular polyhedron" or "convex regular polyhedron". So the singular is not commonly used in both case. D.Lazard (talk) 10:21, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose: These moves are unhelpful bike-shedding and violate WP:PLURAL without any doubt (none of the exceptions listed there are relevant in this case). People regularly make sentences like “a dodecahedron is a platonic solid” without any need to simultaneously talk about cubes. –jacobolus (t) 03:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I think it is too common to consider only a single Platonic solid (one from the set of five) rather than only considering them as a set. Also they are like other mathematical objects with singular article titles and unlike the cases described in WP:PLURAL in the sense that they have a general definition in terms of their mathematical properties that happens to have only five solutions rather than just by their membership in the set of five. That is, it is correct and appropriate to say that a Platonic solid or regular polyhedron or Kepler–Poinsot polyhedron is defined by its property of being flag-transitive (with the only difference between these three classes being what you think of as a polyhedron, and with other variants on abstract manifolds that are also called regular polyhedra, defined in exactly the same way), and it misses the point to try to use membership in the set {tetrahedron,cube,octahedron,dodecahedron,icosahedron} as a definition rather than as a consequence of the proper definition. We shouldn't make the choice of grammatical number in the title of mathematical objects depend on whether the objects described are finite or infinite in number; that would be too arbitrary and would lead to difficulties in cases when we don't yet know whether they are finite or when finiteness is independent of standard assumptions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose as bikeshedding. I concur that discussing an individual Platonic solid is a common thing to do, and that it's more clear to think of membership in the set as a consequence of the definition than as the definition itself. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)