In this polyhedron, half the faces are the two dozen light-blue kites, and the other half are isosceles triangles. I made it using Stella 4d, software you can buy, or try for free, at this website.
Mathematicians have discovered more than one set of rules for polyhedral stellation. The software I use for rapidly manipulating polyhedra (Stella 4d, available here, including as a free trial download) lets the user choose between different sets of stellation criteria, but I generally favor what are called the “fully supported” stellation rules.
For this exercise, I still used the fully supported stellation rules, but set Stella to view these polyhedra as having only tetrahedral symmetry, rather than icosidodecahedral (or “icosahedral”) symmetry. For the icosahedron, this tetrahedral symmetry can be seen in this coloring-pattern.
The next image shows what the icosahedron looks like after a single stellation, when performed through the “lens” of tetrahedral symmetry. This stellation extends the red triangles as kites, and hides the yellow triangles from view in the process.
The second such stellation produces this polyhedron — a pyritohedral dodecahedron — by further-extending the red faces, and obscuring the blue triangles in the process.
The third tetrahedral stellation of the icosahedron produces another pyritohedral figure, which further demonstrates that pyritohedral symmetry is related to both icosidodecahedral and tetrahedral symmetry.
The fourth such stellation produces a Platonic octahedron, but one where the coloring-scheme makes it plain that Stella is still viewing this figure as having tetrahedral symmetry. Given that the octahedron itself has cuboctahedral (or “octahedral”) symmetry, this is an increase in the number of polyhedral symmetry-types which have appeared, so far, in this brief survey.
Next, I looked at the fifth tetrahedral stellation of the icosahedron, and was surprised at what I found.
While I was curious about what would happen if I continued stellating this polyhedron, I also wanted to see this fifth stellation’s convex hull, since I could already tell it would have only hexagons and triangles as faces. Here is that convex hull:
For the last step in this survey, I performed one more tetrahedral stellation, this time on the convex hull I had just produced.
To make the first of these variations, above, I augmented each triangular face of a snub dodecahedron with an antiprism 2.618 times as tall as the triangles’ edge length, and then took the convex hull of the result. The other polyhedra shown, below, were obtained by various other manipulations of the snub dodecahedron, all performed using a program called Stella 4d: Polyhedron Navigator, which you can try right here.
The variant above looked like it needed a name, so I called it an expanded snub truncated dodecahedron. As for the one below, it is one of many facetings of the snub dodecahedron.
Finally, the last figure shown (stumbled upon during a “random walk” with Stella) is one of many possible figures which are non-convex relatives of the snub dodecahedron.
After using Geometer’s Sketchpad and MS-Paint to make the image on the faces (seen alone in the last post), I then used Stella 4d: Polyhedron Navigator to project these images onto a red dodecahedron, and create this .gif. Stella is available, including as a free trial download, at http://www.software3d.com/Stella.php.
I’ve never tried this before: create a rotating polyhedral image which is difficult to watch, using disorienting effects, such as the rotation of the images of spirals on the rotating faces. The spiral is made of golden gnomons (obtuse triangles with a base:leg ratio which is the golden ratio). This image, alone and without comment, is shown in the previous post, and was made using Geometer’s Sketchpad and MS-Paint. In the preparation for this post, it was further altered, including the projection of it onto the faces of a great rhombicosidodecahedron, and creating this rotating .gif. This part of the process was performed using a program called Stella 4d: Polyhedron Navigator, available here. You be the judge, please: is it, in fact, difficult to watch? Did I accomplish my (admittedly rather odd) goal?
If colored by face-type, based on face-position in the overall solid, this “cluster” polyhedron looks like this:
There is another interesting view of this polyhedral cluster I like marginally better, though, and that is to separate the faces into color-groups in which all faces of the same color are either coplanar, or parallel. It looks like this.
Both versions were created by augmenting each face of a Platonic icosahedron with a great icosahedron, one of the four Kepler-Poinsot solids. I did this using Stella 4d: Polyhedron Navigator, available here.
Sixty of the faces of this polyhedron are pentagons (orange), and the other 140 are hexagons of three types (blue, pink, and purple). I made it using Stella 4d, a program available at http://www.software3d.com/Stella.php.
I did not discover this polyhedron, although I wish I had, for it has quite a clever design.
The page where I found it (poorly-translated English version, where it’s called the “Trick Johnson,” whatever that means) is at http://www.geocities.jp/ikuro_kotaro/koramu/1053_g2.htm). I generally don’t repost much work by others here, but, for the “Trick Johnson,” I’m making an exception. By appearance, it’s a near-miss to the Johnson solids, based on combining characteristics of the dodecahedron, the snub cube, and the snub dodecahedron. It has chiral four-fold dihedral symmetry.
If you understand Japanese, I’m sure there’s a lot of interesting information at that linked page. If, on the other hand, you don’t, there’s still a good reason to follow that link: making fun of Google-Chrome’s built-in translator.
“Come very! It makes it the.” Say what?
With some work, I was able to figure out how to make my second near-miss candidate from two posts ago, using Stella 4d (available here), but the results show it is a “near near miss,” not a near miss. Like the first one, the triangles are visibly irregular — and so are the green rectangles; there are also four edge lengths, the longest of which is ~11% longer than the shortest. This is not close enough to qualify as a near-miss.
Not long after I made the image above, a friend I shall simply call T. (until and unless I have his permission to publish his full name) e-mailed me his own versions he made, also using Stella. Here’s what they look like. Each can be enlarged with a click.
These are improved in the sense that the triangles (and squares, in the second one) are regular, but this was done at the expense of the pentagons. At the top and bottom of the figures, the edges where pentagons meet other pentagons are ~6.8% shorter than the other edges of each figure.
These last two are more likely to qualify for actual “near-miss” status — that has yet to be decided — but I need to make it clear than I did not discover them alone, but as part of a team. In my versions, after all, the flaws are more severe. Also, we do not yet know whether or not a different individual or team found these same polyhedra earlier, as often happens.
With help from friends on Facebook, I was able to figure out how to make the second of the near-miss candidates in the last post, using Stella 4d: Polyhedron Navigator, a program available here. This is quite helpful, for Stella has a “measurement mode” than lets me determine just how far off from regularity a given polyhedron is. This is what the “unbelted” polyhedron from the last post looks like, with the pentagons regular:
In this polyhedron, although the pentagons are regular, the triangles are scalene, with angles measuring ~55.35, ~60.81, and ~63.84 degrees. Of the three edge lengths needed for this, the longest is ~9.1% longer than the shortest, and the triangles are definitely non-regular — by visual inspection alone. It is possible to “tidy up” the triangles a bit, but only at the cost of making the pentagons visibly irregular. This is enough to make the call on the “unbelted” near-miss candidate from the last post — it’s a “near near miss,” not a true “near miss.”
All polyhedra in the last post, as it turns out, are related to another near-miss, the discovery of which I had nothing to do with. It has six pentagonal faces, and four which are quadrilaterals. This near-miss may be found here: http://www.mathcurve.com/polyedres/enneaedre/enneaedre.shtml.
[Note: see the next post, also, for more about these polyhedra.]
RobertLovesPi.net 