Prev: Draft paper submission deadline is extended: MULTICONF-10
Next: The metric system sucks
From: Archimedes Plutonium on 2 Feb 2010 16:08


JT wrote:
>
> A tetrahedron would of cours have 4 translational mappings while a
> dodecahedron would need 10, why have would the universe not chose the
> easiest mapping?
>
> JT

Help me out a bit here JT. Question about Poincare Dodecahedral Space
that
Luminet's team is using. They have a 36 degree twist of the pentagonal
faces.
The 36 degree twist is 10% of the sphere surface.

You mention 10 translational mappings. What do you mean specifically
by that? Is that 10 translational mappings related
to the 36 degree twist of the Poincare Dodecahedral Space?

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
From: JT on 2 Feb 2010 16:40
On 2 Feb, 22:08, Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archime...(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> JT wrote:
>
> > A tetrahedron would of cours have 4 translational mappings while a
> > dodecahedron would need 10, why have would the universe not chose the
> > easiest mapping?
>
> > JT
>
> Help me out a bit here JT. Question about Poincare Dodecahedral Space
> that
> Luminet's team is using. They have a 36 degree twist of the pentagonal
> faces.
> The 36 degree twist is 10% of the sphere surface.
>
> You mention 10 translational mappings. What do you mean specifically
> by that? Is that 10 translational mappings related
> to the 36 degree twist of the Poincare Dodecahedral Space?
>
> Archimedes Plutoniumwww.iw.net/~a_plutonium
> whole entire Universe is just one big atom
> where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

No i just looked up the word dodecahedral, and instinctly i was
blinded by the pentagon first thinking 5 then 10 translational axes,
it is of course utterly wrong it is 12.

I guess the modell must be computable, and i guess the 36 degree twist
of translation must have something to to with the connection to other
faces upon original dodecahedral.

I should not bothered, i do not know enough but it would be
interesting to know the reason for beleiving the space would be mapped
to dodechadral, afterall we have simpler platonic solids like the
tetrahedron and hexahedron that would be perfectly wraparound mappable
as a in a discret 3d space?

Well the topic probably way over my head.

JT




although i have no idea if they intended a continuous or discrete
space. It sounds like a discrete space to me but i do not know
anything about the subject.
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Draft paper submission deadline is extended: MULTICONF-10
Next: The metric system sucks