How many uniform polytopes are there in higher dimensions?
$begingroup$
I am not really interested in the exact numbers, but more in the richness of the class of uniform (convex) polytopes in higher dimensions. Wikipedia contains the followin statement:
In five and higher dimensions, there are $3$ regular polytopes, the hypercube, simplex and cross-polytope. [...] Most uniform higher-dimensional polytopes are obtained by modifying the regular polytopes, or by taking the Cartesian product of polytopes of lower dimensions.
In six, seven and eight dimensions, the exceptional simple Lie groups, $E_6$, $E_7$ and $E_8$ come into play.[...]
I am interested in a quantification of the emphasized sentence above. In what sense are these most uniform polytopes? Does the world of uniform polytopes become "boring" in, say, more than $30$ dimensions, because there only remain simple variations on regular polytopes and cartesian products? Or are there exceptional polytopes expected in higher dimensions too?
I would also be satisfied with something like "this seems to be unknown", preferably with some reference.
geometry reference-request polytopes discrete-geometry
edited Jan 6 at 12:59
mrtaurho
4,07121234
asked Jan 6 at 12:51
M. WinterM. Winter
18.9k72766
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am not really interested in the exact numbers, but more in the richness of the class of uniform (convex) polytopes in higher dimensions. Wikipedia contains the followin statement:
In five and higher dimensions, there are $3$ regular polytopes, the hypercube, simplex and cross-polytope. [...] Most uniform higher-dimensional polytopes are obtained by modifying the regular polytopes, or by taking the Cartesian product of polytopes of lower dimensions.
In six, seven and eight dimensions, the exceptional simple Lie groups, $E_6$, $E_7$ and $E_8$ come into play.[...]
I am interested in a quantification of the emphasized sentence above. In what sense are these most uniform polytopes? Does the world of uniform polytopes become "boring" in, say, more than $30$ dimensions, because there only remain simple variations on regular polytopes and cartesian products? Or are there exceptional polytopes expected in higher dimensions too?
I would also be satisfied with something like "this seems to be unknown", preferably with some reference.
geometry reference-request polytopes discrete-geometry
edited Jan 6 at 12:59
mrtaurho
4,07121234
asked Jan 6 at 12:51
M. WinterM. Winter
18.9k72766
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am not really interested in the exact numbers, but more in the richness of the class of uniform (convex) polytopes in higher dimensions. Wikipedia contains the followin statement:
In five and higher dimensions, there are $3$ regular polytopes, the hypercube, simplex and cross-polytope. [...] Most uniform higher-dimensional polytopes are obtained by modifying the regular polytopes, or by taking the Cartesian product of polytopes of lower dimensions.
In six, seven and eight dimensions, the exceptional simple Lie groups, $E_6$, $E_7$ and $E_8$ come into play.[...]
I am interested in a quantification of the emphasized sentence above. In what sense are these most uniform polytopes? Does the world of uniform polytopes become "boring" in, say, more than $30$ dimensions, because there only remain simple variations on regular polytopes and cartesian products? Or are there exceptional polytopes expected in higher dimensions too?
I would also be satisfied with something like "this seems to be unknown", preferably with some reference.
geometry reference-request polytopes discrete-geometry
edited Jan 6 at 12:59
mrtaurho
4,07121234
asked Jan 6 at 12:51
M. WinterM. Winter
18.9k72766
$endgroup$
I am not really interested in the exact numbers, but more in the richness of the class of uniform (convex) polytopes in higher dimensions. Wikipedia contains the followin statement:
In five and higher dimensions, there are $3$ regular polytopes, the hypercube, simplex and cross-polytope. [...] Most uniform higher-dimensional polytopes are obtained by modifying the regular polytopes, or by taking the Cartesian product of polytopes of lower dimensions.
In six, seven and eight dimensions, the exceptional simple Lie groups, $E_6$, $E_7$ and $E_8$ come into play.[...]
I am interested in a quantification of the emphasized sentence above. In what sense are these most uniform polytopes? Does the world of uniform polytopes become "boring" in, say, more than $30$ dimensions, because there only remain simple variations on regular polytopes and cartesian products? Or are there exceptional polytopes expected in higher dimensions too?
I would also be satisfied with something like "this seems to be unknown", preferably with some reference.
geometry reference-request polytopes discrete-geometry
geometry reference-request polytopes discrete-geometry
edited Jan 6 at 12:59
mrtaurho
4,07121234
asked Jan 6 at 12:51
M. WinterM. Winter
18.9k72766
edited Jan 6 at 12:59
mrtaurho
4,07121234
asked Jan 6 at 12:51
M. WinterM. Winter
18.9k72766
edited Jan 6 at 12:59
mrtaurho
4,07121234
edited Jan 6 at 12:59
mrtaurho
4,07121234
edited Jan 6 at 12:59
mrtaurho
4,07121234
4,07121234
asked Jan 6 at 12:51
M. WinterM. Winter
18.9k72766
asked Jan 6 at 12:51
M. WinterM. Winter
18.9k72766
asked Jan 6 at 12:51
M. WinterM. Winter
18.9k72766
18.9k72766
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
To answer onto your question about that "most":
It is that uniform polytopes have a vertex transitivity wrt. some Coxeter reflection group. Or some mere rotational subgroup thereof. Excluding the latter, i.e. snubs and eg. that 4D grand antiprism, you would be left with the set of Wythoffian polytopes, which are coded via symbols (ringed or unringed) to the nodes of Coxeter-Dynkin diagrams (themselves encoding right these mentioned groups). In fact all those Wythoffian polytopes can be reconstructed from that symbolical coding via Wythoffs kaleidoscopical construction device. - Therefore the number of Wythoffian polytopes is a mere combinatoric quest of selecting subsets of nodes on base of the already known group symbols.
Wrt. to the general number I'd think that it is still open, at least for the higher dimensions. Eg. Coxeters famous article on the uniform polyhedra once was a mere conjecture on completeness, which thereafter was proved only by means of a computer aided research.
--- rk
answered Jan 6 at 14:49
Dr. Richard KlitzingDr. Richard Klitzing
1,50616
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This chapter by Egon Schulte,
Egon Schulte, "Symmetry of polytopes and polyhedra."
In Handbook of Discrete and Computational Geometry.
J. E. Goodman and J. O'Rourke, editors
CRC Press, 2017.
has a section on "Semiregular and Uniform Convex Polytopes," including these
paragraphs:
I see that @Dr.RichardKlitzing also mentions Wythoff's construction.
answered Jan 6 at 14:57
Joseph O'RourkeJoseph O'Rourke
17.9k348107
$endgroup$
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%2f3063822%2fhow-many-uniform-polytopes-are-there-in-higher-dimensions%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
To answer onto your question about that "most":
It is that uniform polytopes have a vertex transitivity wrt. some Coxeter reflection group. Or some mere rotational subgroup thereof. Excluding the latter, i.e. snubs and eg. that 4D grand antiprism, you would be left with the set of Wythoffian polytopes, which are coded via symbols (ringed or unringed) to the nodes of Coxeter-Dynkin diagrams (themselves encoding right these mentioned groups). In fact all those Wythoffian polytopes can be reconstructed from that symbolical coding via Wythoffs kaleidoscopical construction device. - Therefore the number of Wythoffian polytopes is a mere combinatoric quest of selecting subsets of nodes on base of the already known group symbols.
Wrt. to the general number I'd think that it is still open, at least for the higher dimensions. Eg. Coxeters famous article on the uniform polyhedra once was a mere conjecture on completeness, which thereafter was proved only by means of a computer aided research.
--- rk
answered Jan 6 at 14:49
Dr. Richard KlitzingDr. Richard Klitzing
1,50616
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
To answer onto your question about that "most":
It is that uniform polytopes have a vertex transitivity wrt. some Coxeter reflection group. Or some mere rotational subgroup thereof. Excluding the latter, i.e. snubs and eg. that 4D grand antiprism, you would be left with the set of Wythoffian polytopes, which are coded via symbols (ringed or unringed) to the nodes of Coxeter-Dynkin diagrams (themselves encoding right these mentioned groups). In fact all those Wythoffian polytopes can be reconstructed from that symbolical coding via Wythoffs kaleidoscopical construction device. - Therefore the number of Wythoffian polytopes is a mere combinatoric quest of selecting subsets of nodes on base of the already known group symbols.
Wrt. to the general number I'd think that it is still open, at least for the higher dimensions. Eg. Coxeters famous article on the uniform polyhedra once was a mere conjecture on completeness, which thereafter was proved only by means of a computer aided research.
--- rk
answered Jan 6 at 14:49
Dr. Richard KlitzingDr. Richard Klitzing
1,50616
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
To answer onto your question about that "most":
It is that uniform polytopes have a vertex transitivity wrt. some Coxeter reflection group. Or some mere rotational subgroup thereof. Excluding the latter, i.e. snubs and eg. that 4D grand antiprism, you would be left with the set of Wythoffian polytopes, which are coded via symbols (ringed or unringed) to the nodes of Coxeter-Dynkin diagrams (themselves encoding right these mentioned groups). In fact all those Wythoffian polytopes can be reconstructed from that symbolical coding via Wythoffs kaleidoscopical construction device. - Therefore the number of Wythoffian polytopes is a mere combinatoric quest of selecting subsets of nodes on base of the already known group symbols.
Wrt. to the general number I'd think that it is still open, at least for the higher dimensions. Eg. Coxeters famous article on the uniform polyhedra once was a mere conjecture on completeness, which thereafter was proved only by means of a computer aided research.
--- rk
answered Jan 6 at 14:49
Dr. Richard KlitzingDr. Richard Klitzing
1,50616
$endgroup$
To answer onto your question about that "most":
It is that uniform polytopes have a vertex transitivity wrt. some Coxeter reflection group. Or some mere rotational subgroup thereof. Excluding the latter, i.e. snubs and eg. that 4D grand antiprism, you would be left with the set of Wythoffian polytopes, which are coded via symbols (ringed or unringed) to the nodes of Coxeter-Dynkin diagrams (themselves encoding right these mentioned groups). In fact all those Wythoffian polytopes can be reconstructed from that symbolical coding via Wythoffs kaleidoscopical construction device. - Therefore the number of Wythoffian polytopes is a mere combinatoric quest of selecting subsets of nodes on base of the already known group symbols.
Wrt. to the general number I'd think that it is still open, at least for the higher dimensions. Eg. Coxeters famous article on the uniform polyhedra once was a mere conjecture on completeness, which thereafter was proved only by means of a computer aided research.
--- rk
answered Jan 6 at 14:49
Dr. Richard KlitzingDr. Richard Klitzing
1,50616
answered Jan 6 at 14:49
Dr. Richard KlitzingDr. Richard Klitzing
1,50616
answered Jan 6 at 14:49
Dr. Richard KlitzingDr. Richard Klitzing
1,50616
answered Jan 6 at 14:49
Dr. Richard KlitzingDr. Richard Klitzing
1,50616
1,50616
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This chapter by Egon Schulte,
Egon Schulte, "Symmetry of polytopes and polyhedra."
In Handbook of Discrete and Computational Geometry.
J. E. Goodman and J. O'Rourke, editors
CRC Press, 2017.
has a section on "Semiregular and Uniform Convex Polytopes," including these
paragraphs:
I see that @Dr.RichardKlitzing also mentions Wythoff's construction.
answered Jan 6 at 14:57
Joseph O'RourkeJoseph O'Rourke
17.9k348107
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This chapter by Egon Schulte,
Egon Schulte, "Symmetry of polytopes and polyhedra."
In Handbook of Discrete and Computational Geometry.
J. E. Goodman and J. O'Rourke, editors
CRC Press, 2017.
has a section on "Semiregular and Uniform Convex Polytopes," including these
paragraphs:
I see that @Dr.RichardKlitzing also mentions Wythoff's construction.
answered Jan 6 at 14:57
Joseph O'RourkeJoseph O'Rourke
17.9k348107
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This chapter by Egon Schulte,
Egon Schulte, "Symmetry of polytopes and polyhedra."
In Handbook of Discrete and Computational Geometry.
J. E. Goodman and J. O'Rourke, editors
CRC Press, 2017.
has a section on "Semiregular and Uniform Convex Polytopes," including these
paragraphs:
I see that @Dr.RichardKlitzing also mentions Wythoff's construction.
answered Jan 6 at 14:57
Joseph O'RourkeJoseph O'Rourke
17.9k348107
$endgroup$
This chapter by Egon Schulte,
Egon Schulte, "Symmetry of polytopes and polyhedra."
In Handbook of Discrete and Computational Geometry.
J. E. Goodman and J. O'Rourke, editors
CRC Press, 2017.
has a section on "Semiregular and Uniform Convex Polytopes," including these
paragraphs:
I see that @Dr.RichardKlitzing also mentions Wythoff's construction.
answered Jan 6 at 14:57
Joseph O'RourkeJoseph O'Rourke
17.9k348107
answered Jan 6 at 14:57
Joseph O'RourkeJoseph O'Rourke
17.9k348107
answered Jan 6 at 14:57
Joseph O'RourkeJoseph O'Rourke
17.9k348107
answered Jan 6 at 14:57
Joseph O'RourkeJoseph O'Rourke
17.9k348107
17.9k348107
add a comment |
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%2f3063822%2fhow-many-uniform-polytopes-are-there-in-higher-dimensions%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
