User talk:Tomruen/uniform polychoron

&mdash;Tamfang 18:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Coxeter Regular Polytopes &sec;7.6 (p.131 of the Dover edition) says: "...obvious fact that the symmetry group of the one-dimensional polytope {} has order N0=2."
 * In the top table, I'd number the columns the other way around: tk has a vertex, not a cell, at the center of the k-dimensional element.


 * I replaced prism notation as t{2,p} - used and justified in the 1954 paper, and I'm satisfied it is better, even if {2,p}, a dihedral polyhedron, is degenerate for 3-space.
 * On "numbering" columns (0,1,2,3 point subscripts), you may be right, at least I have to think! Feel free to change this table in Schl%C3%A4fli_symbol as you believe correct.
 * Tom Ruen 23:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The entries for Coxeter-Stott and Johnson are around the wrong way. Stott's notation is to use en for each of the expand operators. Since this is the notation that ultimately comes through wythoff to Coxeter as ta,b... The notation by Johnson is to use appreviations of his names, eg rr=runcinated. My page on the Coxeter-stott notation is wrong, but i have not re-edited that part of the pages as yet.

You could include Conway's notation, since the Conway-Hart notation comes from treating every polytope as regular. --Wendy.krieger (talk) 08:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Wendy. This table was pretty old. The uniform polytope articles now just use the "t"-notation (without explanation) and Coxeter-Dynkin diagrams. Currently I'm working on uniform polychoron/honeycombs vertex figures, tables at User:Tomruen/polychoron_verf. Still correcting errors if you see any. Tom Ruen (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)