353:
the article is intended to be about only the regular compound of five cubes, then the octahedrally symmetric compound remains directly related to the regular compound of 5 cubes in particular. It certainly has significantly less relation to a compound of 3 tetrahedra. The article also is here to inform people of what a "compound of five cubes" is; not solely what the "regular compound of five cubes" is; hence the article's name, and also why, for example, the "dodecahedron" article is similarly not about only the "regular dodecahedron", which is itself a separate article. This is also in-keeping with a number of other articles on compound solids, and with articles on geometric solids in general, where, even when focused on a specific example, their extended geometric properties and geometric relations to other solids and symmetries are still noted in the articles. The purpose of the article is to provide a reader with information they might be looking for by searching for "compound of five cubes", which certainly includes pointing to more examples than only the regular compound of 5 cubes. There also isn't a prescriptive reason for this article being about solely the regular compound of 5 cubes. That is an arbitrary opinion that the article isn't obliged to reflect. And arbitrarily implementing that limit does not serve to
1000:
that geometry serviceable. Definitely the animations would convey that property of this geometry in way less space. I very much appreciate the rendering of the transition in the
Knowledge commons. The fact this transitional symmetry relationship now has extant visual demonstrations is a significant contribution to insight on the topic, and that is the core of why I considered the text version worth re-addeding. It is appreciated. A simple animation showing the transitional relationship of the symmetry groups does seem an ideal solution to what should fit in this article.
683:
the regular 5-cube compound has, and its arrangement of cubes, allows it to undergo a continuous, symmetric transformation (via rotation of its cubes around the diagonal axes of its coincident vertices of a reference cube) through a phase of pyritohedral symmetry, to octahedral symmetry (the compound being challenged), which is a transformation analogous to the transition between a regular dodecahedron to a rhombic dodecahedron, but one which doesn't involve deformation (taking the cubes to be individual bodies).
84:
74:
53:
179:
158:
706:
compound". That issue still absolutely still remains a valid reason to preserve the improved explanation of the compound overall first, before explaining the regular compound specifically, for the sake of a reader's accurate understanding of the topic. Phrasing matters. Misleading readers - even accidentally - would be a bad call to make. Making it clear that this article is about one example, rather than the only example, is better phrasing.
838:
the article. And if the only thing you want is literature, that does seem bizarrely stringent for an extra bit of information on this compound, and if that really is where you draw the line, then the article lacks information unless some mathematicians out there want to write formal literature on it. Either way, it definitely makes more sense included as a side-note here than in the 4-cube compound article.
580:
do with the compound; personally, I'm a recreational mathematician who took a look at this article and noticed that there was some information relevant to the topic that was, for some reason, was missing. The geometry is a fact about it with or without me or somebody else putting it back in a
Knowledge article; all I wanted was for the article to have more and better information on the topic that it is about.
647:- a similar side-note, for exactly that same reason. The difference being that it is generated from either in different ways. Also, I want to point out, this isn't original research. Actually, I'm not sure if it could be considered original research, because the geometry is an irremovable part of the solid, no matter what person might be writing it on Knowledge. But this geometric relationship is also
991:
trying to avoid miscommunication as best as possible. There seemed to be a lot, on my side too, regarding the purpose of what the information was describing, in relation to the scope of the article's topic. It seemed the correct place for the information in question. I think an understanding is being reached now, in that the symmetry transformations could be presented more concisely, and it made
22:
390:
articles. And it would also mean another article (analogous to "dodecahedron" versus "regular dodecahedron") would need to be made, which would be superfluous, given their overlap and needless differentiation. One article is more useful. An article listing symmetric compounds of 5 cubes also isn't really necessary.
755:", which seems to deliberately overexaggerate the scope of the information being added, and the intention behind it (this is 1 compound related to the regular compound directly, and the explanation of how being included; not all symmetric 5-cube compounds being added for the sake of having a list), and "
979:
current IP address (which is on top of other internet stuff; not important). Don't worry, I respect all the normal rules, including blocks. The quick point is that this editing wasn't some random one-off overzealousness, which seems to have been the impression. I completely get why it would appear to
651:
from the image (insofar as a person can visualize the transformation from seeing the relevant coincident vertices). But the explanation for its inclusion is largely that anybody looking up "compound of 5 cubes" would likely find it - at minimum - passingly relevant to the nature of the regular 5-cube
379:
as an example of a possible modification. In exactly the same way (as an example of modification), the same compound also fits in this article. And that is in addition to the rest of its reason for inclusion. The modification to the 4-cube compound is also non-continuous addition, while the symmetric
352:
transformations, and an example that, in particular, highlights the way in which the regular 5-cube compound's symmetry group is related to octahedral symmetry, through pyritohedral symmetry, via any of its component cubes. This is a non-arbitrary feature of the regular 5-cube compound's geometry. If
999:
give it the impression of being a standalone, other compound mentioned aside for no particular reason. The animations would obviously be sufficient in conveying it. Rendering those images and animations is without my wheelhouse, so I considered the prewritten, text-based description of the nature of
837:
the information is presented is a problem, absolutely, I'd encourage presenting it better. Probably you know those standards better than me, but I do very strongly believe the information that was added and then removed is information now missing from this article that belongs there, on the topic of
832:
re-addition to the article of an unrelated compound being presented as a new discovery. The symmetry group of the regular 5-cube compound links it - through a continuous, non-deforming transformation of its component cubes rotation about the axes of their and the reference cube's coincident vertices
797:
can do, given its lack of literature is point to the only recent example I can both recall and locate, which was Grant
Sanderson's video. I'm aware it isn't ideal. The point is that "Look, I have discovered another compound!" isn't what is happening here, and other mathematicians are aware of it. It
746:
Personally, I'd appreciate it if you'd pull in the reigns on that kind of rhetorically charged language and opinion. I'm really trying to keep redirecting this back to the topic of the article. The kind of phrasing you're using tries to impose an opinion of why the information was re-added. It isn't
579:
whether the compound is notable as a claim that it isn't. But neither of us should try to take a position as if everybody else is on our side. I think most people don't care about this. And this isn't really about me; you don't need to try to make this an interpersonal feud. I don't have anything to
389:
If this article needs to be renamed to "regular compound of 5 cubes", then fair enough, but the vandalistic removal of relevant information isn't beneficial to this article, and renaming it in that way, to limits its focus, doesn't match the style of contents of a number of other similar and related
787:
aware of that. That is one reason to improve this article. It isn't a flippant whim of discovery somebody is looking to flaunt for no reason on a whim. The mathematics is there. Personally, I find it relevant, which is why I wanted to re-add it. Trying to arguing I'm the "only" person who thinks it
990:
To you, which - if that is still the impression you have, given the VPN clarification - I'm alright with being the case as well as the opinion of my reply being "absurdly long" and an "oversized answer". I am still trying to steer away from that kind of an interpersonal stuff, though. I was mostly
966:
From this IP address. Maybe this point might need a clarifying, because of the impression there seems to be of the editing. I use a VPN, and have to change my settings to be able to contribute to
Knowledge articles. All the edits from this current IP would be only the edits I've done today, yes. I
723:
Also, I'm going to stop addressing whether the scope of the article should be about what the regular 5-cube compound is, or the topic of what a 5-cube compound is. Articles contract and expand scope all the time. That debate really doesn't have an impact. In both cases, excluding mention of solids
682:
in that section. It was outlined more formally (maybe a shorter description with less information would satisfy what you consider an appropriate level of informativeness), but it is the same information about the same geometric transformation. The point of inclusion is that the symmetry group that
705:
That being your position, there are a number of other similar articles that you probably will want to edit to make them match this one. The reason for that change was given as "the article previously used wording that may have mislead readers by implying the existence of only one symmetric 5-cube
574:
I'm sorry if I've offended you. I get an impression - please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this - that you're taking this at least somewhat personally, and I'm not entirely sure why. I'm here for the mathematics and the education. I'm not trying to pick fights; I'm trying to better this
402:
The octahedrally symmetric compound of 5 cubes isn't trivial or without precedent in academic awareness; what it lacks is literature, like many similarly specific solids. Of minimal note (of personal recent recollection), is its presence in a video (although it was not the topic or focus of the
783:" in your last edit, even though you're aware that it is the regular compound of 5 cubes, specifically. It isn't constructive to treat Knowledge like something to win and then try to flaunt. And a feeling of self-rightness isn't constructive. This compound doesn't have much literature. I
806:
be taken in isolation. It can be thought of or framed either way. And it is being framed as relating to the regular 5-cube compound here. That is the point. Please stop trying to make this about me. You don't know me. I'm interested in improving an article; not a fight. I don't know you
607:
that it isn't notable is, to me, not a strongly substantive reasoning to delete that information. And it is sort of tautological, the fact it isn't a solid often noted being a reason to subsequently not note it. This is already a very niche article to begin with. The information on the
747:
advertisement. The mathematics of it is there without me, and I am trying to better the article, and trying to accomplish that with professional explanation. You're sort of trying to turn this into a personal feud, instead of helping to make the article an informative one. The "
407:. This is being pointed to to illustrate that it isn't a flippant or trivial discovery being added for no reason. Still, whatever the focus of the article, this is relevant information to the regular compound's geometric properties. This clearly isn't an arbitrary addition.
878:
Concerning "advertise", "contraption" etc.: Your changes to this article could be interpreted more benevolently than I did. If you were a user with a general interest in improving geometry articles, I would be more inclined to do that. But I can't help but notice that
798:
isn't an advertised contraption. It is difficult to find what writing on it there is, in particular because the regular compound is much more widely discussed. The octahedrally symmetric compound of 5 cubes is a niche detail of the regular compound, and it
833:- to octahedral symmetry (in the compound being challenged), through pyritohedral-symmetry. That is a feature of the compound's geometry. Aspects of it are listen in other parts of the article in other ways, but this relationship not stated. If the
519:
I will also change that back to the original sentence. It seems, that no one except you believes this other compound should be here. Unless that changes, I will keep reverting your attempts to advertise the "Frodelius 5-cube".
642:
Well, for a start, if a compound of 5 cubes warrants inclusion in the compound of 4 cubes article, based on the reasoning that it can generated from the latter, it then still also belongs on this article as -
612:
of the article's scope being a family of solids or of a specific example. There are many other symmetric 5-cube compounds. No others in that family (to my knowledge) share this specific symmetric relationship.
890:
792:
an argument. Somebody is present, visibly saying it should be added. The case is being made. Dismissing it because the case isn't being made enough isn't listening to the merits of the case itself. The best
602:
That is a fair opinion to have. But it is opinion. My opinion is the opposite, because the octahedrally symmetric 5-cube compound has a direct link to the regular 5-cube compound through their groups. The
724:
related directly to the regular 5-cube compound is not beneficial. It is - I would strongly argue - information that fits there. It is - in some meaningful sense - a part of the regular 5-cube compound.
1162:
380:
transformation between the two 5-cube compounds is a continuous, symmetric transformation. That, plus the fact it is a 5-cube compound makes it fit more strongly in the "compound of 5 cubes" article.
357:
the quality or contents of this article. And again, even fully taking that to be the case, the octahedrally symmetric compound illustrates an aspect of the regular 5-cube compound's symmetry group.
317:
313:
140:
608:
octahedrally-symmetric 5-cube compound was being noted as a feature of the regular 5-cube compound's geometry and symmetry group. Which is information about the topic of the article,
751:" stance send a message that you've completely already made up your mind to keep the article's informativeness narrowed, and also making that personal. You've used wording like "
967:
try to improve articles on mathematical topics every so often, when I notice room for it. My IP address isn't permanent, because of the security settings I use, and, because I
652:
compound. I certainly find it relevant in a few ways. Hence adding it. The rationalization that only a small number of people has so far thought to include it, isn't a reason
366:(If somebody is able to render a 3D animation of this, that would likely better reflect this feature of the regular 5-cube compound's geometry than the static image does.)
886:
Anyway, somewhere in that oversized answer you could have mentioned, that the rotation angle is 2*arctan((sqrt(5)-2)/sqrt(3)). That was a bit of a pain to calculate.
1172:
883:
your edits aim at adding this compound to this article. That makes you seem more like the kind of user who wants to push their pet issue into other peoples faces.
575:
article. But I don't follow your reasoning that "no one except me" believes the compound should be included. We're two people. Three, if you interpret the person
241:
1157:
247:
130:
1152:
995:
this symmetry transformation is directly related to the symmetry group of the regular 5-cube compound, rather than it being presented in a way that
1167:
227:
106:
203:
1058:
1114:
1007:
845:
414:
269:
Is the alternate non-isogonal compound of five cubes presented notable in any way? I can't find any reference to the object online. –
771:" (I don't own the octahedrally-symmetric 5-cube compound, and calling it a "contraption" reads as deliberately derisive), and the "
97:
58:
186:
163:
375:
The octahedrally symmetric 5-cube compound was previously added to the compound of 4-cubes article, where it makes sense
33:
320:
has reintroduced it. If this is not original reaearch (which I doubt), it could find its place in an overview called
325:
915:
287:
548:
This'll be a bit of a lengthy reply, I'm going to try to explain this a bit better. I'll add a TL;DR at the end.
896:
This is indeed quite cute, and I would not mind adding an animated picture of the transition to this article.
515:
that is a symmetric arrangement of five cubes. This typically refers to the regular compound of five cubes.
472:
This article is about the one notable compound of five cubes. Originally the first sentence reflected that:
21:
1118:
1046:
1011:
922:
912:
908:
849:
635:
486:
is one of the five regular polyhedral compounds. This compound was first described by Edmund Hess in 1876.
449:
418:
291:
321:
276:
39:
454:
the symmetric transformation between the two 5-cube compounds is a continuous, symmetric transformation
83:
348:
The octahedrally symmetric 5-cube compound is a notable illustration of the regular 5-cube compound's
1110:
1003:
841:
410:
1069:
931:
526:
512:
501:
479:
458:(To be fair, this was mentioned only on the talk page, not in the disputed section of the article.)
334:
300:
202:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
105:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
674:
To be fair, this was mentioned only on the talk page, not in the disputed section of the article.
89:
1057:
Would you mind if I put the non-TL;DR part of your long answer in a collapsible box (like I did
73:
52:
436:
I doubt that the "Frodelius 5-cube" is notable enough to justify a detailed description. That
509:
270:
178:
157:
598:
I doubt that the "Frodelius 5-cube" is notable enough to justify a detailed description.
1064:
926:
521:
329:
295:
233:
1146:
900:
631:
445:
1122:
1074:
1015:
936:
853:
531:
422:
339:
305:
280:
437:
102:
79:
903:
shows a tiny picture of your compound, and calls it "first cube 4-compound".
199:
195:
191:
889:
I have made some illustrations of that transition, which can be found
403:
video), that was published by mathematician Grant
Sanderson, visible
404:
975:
often, all those other edits wouldn't end up being attributed to
505:
483:
925:. I would not add a "can be inscribed" list to this article. --
757:
Just write
Compounds of five cubes, if you think this matters.
236:
in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
232:
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the
15:
634:
explanation, why this should by anymore than a side-note in
448:
explanation, why this should by anymore than a side-note in
907:
The cube 5-compound can be inscribed on the vertices of an
828:
TL;DR: The octahedrally-symmetric 5-cue compound isn't an
444:
is better than nothing. But I have seen no trace of a non-
491:
701:
I will also change that back to the original sentence.
1163:
Start-Class articles with conflicting quality ratings
985:
That makes you seem more like the kind of user who...
678:
I feel like I should point out that the information
190:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
101:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
246:This article has not yet received a rating on the
893:. I will add other images, including animations.
8:
753:not an overview of any conceivable compounds
286:I doubt it. I removed the section and added
763:like a dismissive tone; it is important to
440:used an image of it to illustrate the term
1108:
1001:
921:I think that justifies a short section in
899:I just realized, that the Wolfram article
839:
557:
490:I just realized, that it was also you who
456:" sounds interesting, but is probably OR.
408:
152:
47:
19:
773:Look, I have discovered another compound!
1049:, and a picture of the animation in the
154:
49:
1173:Unknown-importance Polyhedra articles
7:
875:This answer is indeed absurdly long.
184:This article is within the scope of
95:This article is within the scope of
749:I will keep reverting your attempts
38:It is of interest to the following
779:" assertion. Plus the emphasized "
775:" thing in your editing, and the "
630:But I have seen no trace of a non-
234:project-independent quality rating
14:
1158:Low-priority mathematics articles
1107:I would not mind. By all means.
115:Knowledge:WikiProject Mathematics
177:
156:
118:Template:WikiProject Mathematics
82:
72:
51:
20:
1153:Stub-Class mathematics articles
777:no one except you believes this
759:", which - at the very least -
212:Knowledge:WikiProject Polyhedra
135:This article has been rated as
1168:Start-Class Polyhedra articles
215:Template:WikiProject Polyhedra
1:
1016:05:32, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
937:02:55, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
854:16:14, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
532:12:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
423:11:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
326:c:Category:Compounds of cubes
206:and see a list of open tasks.
109:and see a list of open tasks.
781:*the* compound of five cubes
560:
1123:21:31, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
1075:13:23, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
340:21:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
1189:
1045:I have added a section in
312:I removed it again, after
281:16:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
248:project's importance scale
916:Deltoidal Hexecontahedron
306:22:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
288:File:Frodelius 5-Cube.png
245:
231:
172:
134:
67:
46:
1053:section of this article.
494:that to be more general:
141:project's priority scale
742:"attempts to advertise"
98:WikiProject Mathematics
1047:Compound of four cubes
923:Compound of four cubes
909:augmented dodecahedron
788:should be added isn't
636:Compound of four cubes
450:Compound of four cubes
292:Compound of four cubes
28:This article is rated
187:WikiProject Polyhedra
121:mathematics articles
802:is a compound that
513:polyhedron compound
399:Of additional note:
322:Compounds of cubes
265:Alternate compound
218:Polyhedra articles
90:Mathematics portal
34:content assessment
1125:
1113:comment added by
1073:
1062:
1018:
1006:comment added by
935:
856:
844:comment added by
819:
818:
530:
459:
425:
413:comment added by
338:
304:
262:
261:
258:
257:
254:
253:
151:
150:
147:
146:
1180:
1067:
1056:
986:
963:
929:
918:
782:
778:
774:
770:
769:Your contraption
758:
754:
750:
743:
702:
675:
639:
599:
558:
524:
516:
487:
457:
455:
332:
298:
273:
220:
219:
216:
213:
210:
181:
174:
173:
168:
160:
153:
123:
122:
119:
116:
113:
92:
87:
86:
76:
69:
68:
63:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
1188:
1187:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1143:
1142:
984:
961:
913:cube 4-compound
906:
901:Cube 5-Compound
780:
776:
772:
768:
756:
752:
748:
741:
700:
673:
629:
597:
510:face-transitive
497:
475:
453:
271:
267:
217:
214:
211:
208:
207:
166:
120:
117:
114:
111:
110:
88:
81:
61:
32:on Knowledge's
29:
12:
11:
5:
1186:
1184:
1176:
1175:
1170:
1165:
1160:
1155:
1145:
1144:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1054:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1019:
993:more clear how
988:
981:
964:
962:all your edits
948:
947:
946:
945:
944:
943:
942:
941:
940:
939:
919:
904:
897:
894:
887:
884:
876:
864:
863:
862:
861:
860:
859:
858:
857:
817:
816:
815:
814:
813:
812:
811:
810:
809:
808:
767:article, and "
744:
732:
731:
730:
729:
728:
727:
726:
725:
714:
713:
712:
711:
710:
709:
708:
707:
703:
691:
690:
689:
688:
687:
686:
685:
684:
676:
664:
663:
662:
661:
660:
659:
658:
657:
640:
620:
619:
618:
617:
616:
615:
614:
613:
600:
588:
587:
586:
585:
584:
583:
582:
581:
563:
562:
556:
555:
554:
553:
552:
551:
550:
549:
539:
538:
537:
536:
535:
534:
517:
495:
488:
473:
465:
464:
463:
462:
461:
460:
429:
428:
427:
426:
400:
394:
393:
392:
391:
384:
383:
382:
381:
370:
369:
368:
367:
361:
360:
359:
358:
343:
342:
309:
308:
266:
263:
260:
259:
256:
255:
252:
251:
244:
238:
237:
230:
224:
223:
221:
204:the discussion
182:
170:
169:
161:
149:
148:
145:
144:
133:
127:
126:
124:
107:the discussion
94:
93:
77:
65:
64:
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1185:
1174:
1171:
1169:
1166:
1164:
1161:
1159:
1156:
1154:
1151:
1150:
1148:
1124:
1120:
1116:
1112:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1076:
1071:
1066:
1060:
1055:
1052:
1048:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1017:
1013:
1009:
1005:
998:
994:
989:
982:
978:
974:
970:
965:
960:
959:
958:
957:
956:
955:
954:
953:
952:
951:
950:
949:
938:
933:
928:
924:
920:
917:
914:
910:
905:
902:
898:
895:
892:
888:
885:
882:
877:
874:
873:
872:
871:
870:
869:
868:
867:
866:
865:
855:
851:
847:
843:
836:
831:
827:
826:
825:
824:
823:
822:
821:
820:
805:
801:
796:
791:
786:
766:
762:
745:
740:
739:
738:
737:
736:
735:
734:
733:
722:
721:
720:
719:
718:
717:
716:
715:
704:
699:
698:
697:
696:
695:
694:
693:
692:
681:
677:
672:
671:
670:
669:
668:
667:
666:
665:
655:
650:
646:
641:
637:
633:
628:
627:
626:
625:
624:
623:
622:
621:
611:
606:
601:
596:
595:
594:
593:
592:
591:
590:
589:
578:
573:
572:
571:
570:
569:
568:
567:
566:
565:
564:
559:
547:
546:
545:
544:
543:
542:
541:
540:
533:
528:
523:
518:
514:
511:
507:
503:
500:
496:
493:
489:
485:
481:
478:
474:
471:
470:
469:
468:
467:
466:
451:
447:
443:
439:
435:
434:
433:
432:
431:
430:
424:
420:
416:
412:
406:
401:
398:
397:
396:
395:
388:
387:
386:
385:
378:
374:
373:
372:
371:
365:
364:
363:
362:
356:
351:
347:
346:
345:
344:
341:
336:
331:
327:
323:
319:
315:
311:
310:
307:
302:
297:
293:
289:
285:
284:
283:
282:
278:
274:
264:
249:
243:
240:
239:
235:
229:
226:
225:
222:
205:
201:
197:
193:
189:
188:
183:
180:
176:
175:
171:
165:
162:
159:
155:
142:
138:
132:
129:
128:
125:
108:
104:
100:
99:
91:
85:
80:
78:
75:
71:
70:
66:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
1115:74.106.20.33
1109:— Preceding
1050:
1008:74.106.20.33
1002:— Preceding
996:
992:
976:
972:
968:
880:
846:74.106.20.33
840:— Preceding
834:
829:
803:
799:
794:
789:
784:
764:
760:
679:
653:
648:
645:at the least
644:
610:irrespective
609:
604:
576:
561:long answer
498:
476:
441:
415:74.106.20.33
409:— Preceding
376:
354:
349:
268:
198:, and other
185:
137:Low-priority
136:
96:
62:Low‑priority
40:WikiProjects
971:make edits
438:3Blue1Brown
324:. (compare
272:OfficialURL
167:Start‑class
112:Mathematics
103:mathematics
59:Mathematics
1147:Categories
911:, (first)
891:on Commons
656:adding it.
30:Stub-class
1065:Watchduck
973:extremely
927:Watchduck
830:arbitrary
522:Watchduck
350:symmetric
330:Watchduck
296:Watchduck
209:Polyhedra
200:polytopes
196:polyhedra
164:Polyhedra
1111:unsigned
1051:See also
1004:unsigned
980:be that.
842:unsigned
508:is is a
504:of five
502:compound
482:of five
480:compound
452:. That "
442:symmetry
411:unsigned
192:polygons
807:either.
654:against
649:visible
605:opinion
492:changed
355:improve
318:...6546
314:...A2E9
139:on the
790:really
577:asking
36:scale.
1070:quack
997:could
969:don't
932:quack
761:reads
527:quack
506:cubes
484:cubes
335:quack
301:quack
228:Start
1119:talk
1059:here
1012:talk
977:this
850:talk
800:also
765:this
419:talk
405:here
377:only
328:) --
277:talk
881:all
835:way
804:can
477:The
290:in
242:???
131:Low
1149::
1121:)
1063:--
1061:)?
1014:)
852:)
785:am
680:is
632:OR
520:--
446:OR
421:)
294:.
279:)
194:,
1117:(
1072:)
1068:(
1010:(
987:"
983:"
934:)
930:(
848:(
795:I
638:.
529:)
525:(
499:A
417:(
337:)
333:(
316:/
303:)
299:(
275:(
250:.
143:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
