Regular polytope
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In mathematics, a regular polytope is a geometric figure with a high degree of symmetry. Examples in two dimensions include the square, the regular pentagon and hexagon, and other regular polygons, including star polygons. In three dimensions the regular polytopes include the cube, the dodecahedron, and other regular polyhedra. There exist examples in higher dimensions also. Circles and spheres, although highly symmetric, are not considered polytopes because they do not have plane faces. The strong symmetry of the regular polytopes gives them an aesthetic quality that interests both non-mathematicians and mathematicians.
Many regular polytopes, at least in two and three dimensions, exist in nature and have been known since prehistory. The earliest surviving mathematical treatment of these objects comes to us from ancient Greek mathematicians such as Euclid. Indeed, Euclid wrote a systematic study of mathematics, publishing it under the title Elements, which built up a logical theory of geometry and number theory. His work concluded with mathematical descriptions of the five Platonic solids.
The definition of the regular polytopes remained static for many centuries after Euclid. Overall, however, the history of the study of regular polytopes has been one where the definition has been steadily generalised, allowing more and more objects to be considered among their number. In the 17th century Johannes Kepler recognised that the Kepler star polyhedra were also regular polyhedra. By the end of the 19th century, mathematicians such as Arthur Cayley and Ludwig Schläfli had developed the theory of regular polytopes in four and higher dimensions, such as the tesseract and the 24-cell. The latter are hard to visualise, but still retain the aesthetically pleasing symmetry of their lower dimensional cousins. Harder still to imagine are the more modern abstract regular polytopes such as the 57-cell or the 11-cell. From the mathematical point of view, however, these objects have the same aesthetic qualities as their more familiar two and three-dimensional relatives.
Contents |
[edit] History of discovery
The history of discovery of the regular polytopes can be characterised by a gradual broadening of the basic concept. Gradually, the idea of a 'regular' geometric figure has been given successively wider meaning, allowing more different geometric objects to be so labeled. With each widening, new geometric figures are uncovered — these new figures usually being completely unknown to previous generations.
[edit] Prehistory
Although the Greeks are usually credited with being the first to discover the regular polyhedra, stones carved in shapes showing the symmetry of all five of the Platonic solids have been found in Scotland and may be as much a 4,000 years old. These stones show not only the form of each of the five Platonic solids, but also the relations of duality amongst them (that is, that the centres of the faces of the cube gives the vertices of an octahedron, and so on). Examples of these stones are on display in the John Evans room of the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford University. It is impossible to know why these objects were made, or how the sculptor gained the inspiration for them.
It is also possible that the Etruscans preceded the Greeks in their awareness of at least some of the regular polyhedra, as evidenced by the discovery near Padua (in Northern Italy) in the late 1800s of a dodecahedron made of soapstone, and dating back more than 2,500 years (Lindemann, 1987). Pyritohedric crystals are found in northern Italy[citation needed].
The earliest known written records of these shapes do come from Greek authors, who also gave the first known mathematical description of them.
[edit] Greeks
Some authors (Sanford, 1930) credit Pythagoras (550 BC) with being familiar with the Platonic solids, whereas others indicate that he may only have been familiar with the tetrahedron, cube, and dodecahedron, crediting the discovery of the other two to Theaetetus (an Athenian), who in any case gave a mathematical description of all five (Van der Waerden, 1954), (Euclid, book XIII). H.S.M. Coxeter (Coxeter, 1948, Section 1.9) credits Plato (400 BC) with having made models of them, and mentions that one of the earlier Pythagoreans, Timaeus of Locri, used all five in a correspondence between the polyhedra and the nature of the universe as it was then perceived - this correspondence is recorded in Plato's dialogue Timaeus. It is from Plato's name that the term Platonic solids is derived.
[edit] Star polyhedra
For almost 2000 years, the concept of a regular polytope remained as developed by the ancient Greek mathematicians. One might characterise the Greek definition as follows:
- A regular polygon is a (convex) planar figure with all edges equal and all corners equal
- A regular polyhedron is a solid (convex) figure with all faces being congruent regular polygons, the same number arranged around each vertex.
This definition rules out, for example, the square pyramid (since although all the faces are regular, the square base is not congruent to the triangular sides), or the shape formed by joining two tetrahedra together (since although all faces would be equilateral triangles, that is, congruent and regular, some vertices have 3 triangles and others have 4).
The next type of regular polytope to be discovered were the regular star polygons and star polyhedra, also called the Kepler-Poinsot polyhedra, after Johannes Kepler and Louis Poinsot. Star polygons were first described in the 14th century by Thomas Bradwardine (Cromwell, 1997). Johannes Kepler realised that star polygons could be used to build star polyhedra, which have non-convex regular polygons, typically pentagrams as faces. Some of these star polyhedra may have been discovered by others before Kepler's time, but he was the first to recognise that they could be considered "regular" if one removed the restriction that regular polytopes be convex. Later, Poinsot realised that star vertex figures (circuits around each corner) can also be used, and discovered the remaining two star polyhedra. Cayley gave them English names which have become accepted. They are: (Kepler's) the small stellated dodecahedron and great stellated dodecahedron, and (Poinsot's) the great icosahedron and great dodecahedron.
The Kepler-Poinsot polyhedra may be constructed from the Platonic solids by a process called stellation. Most stellations are not regular. The study of stellations of the Platonic solids was given a big push by H. S. M. Coxeter and others in 1938, with the now famous paper The 59 icosahedra. This work has recently been re-published (Coxeter, 1999).
The reciprocal process to stellation is called facetting (or faceting). Every stellation of one polytope is dual, or reciprocal, to some facetting of the dual polytope. The regular star polyhedra can also be obtained by facetting the Platonic solids. Bridge 1974 listed the simpler facettings of the dodecahedron, and reciprocated them to discover a stellation of the icosahedron that was missing from the famous "59". More have been discovered since, and the story is not yet ended.
[edit] Higher-dimensional polytopes
It was not until the 19th century that a Swiss mathematician, Ludwig Schläfli, examined and characterised the regular polytopes in higher dimensions. His efforts were first published in full in (Schläfli, 1901), six years posthumously, although parts of it were published in 1855 and 1858 (Schläfli, 1855), (Schläfli, 1858). Interestingly, between 1880 and 1900, Schläfli's results were rediscovered independently by at least nine other mathematicians — see (Coxeter, 1948, pp143–144) for more details. Schläfli called such a figure a "polyschem" (in English, "polyscheme" or "polyshema"). The term "polytope" was introduced by Hoppe in 1882, and first used in English by Mrs. Stott some twenty years later.
The latter reference is probably the most comprehensive printed treatment of Schläfli's and similar results to date. Schläfli showed that there are six regular convex polytopes in 4 dimensions, and exactly three in each higher dimension. Descriptions of these may be found in the List of regular polytopes. Also of interest are the nonconvex regular 4-polytopes, partially discovered by Schläfli.
At the start of the 20th century, the definition of a regular polytope was as follows.
- A regular polygon is a polygon whose edges are all equal and whose angles are all equal.
- A regular polyhedron is a polyhedron whose faces are all congruent regular polygons, and whose vertex figures are all congruent and regular.
- And so on, a regular n-polytope is an n-dimensional polytope whose (n − 1)-dimensional faces are all regular and congruent, and whose vertex figures are all regular and congruent.
This is a "recursive" definition. It defines regularity of higher dimensional figures in terms of regular figures of a lower dimension. There is an equivalent (non-recursive) definition, which states that a polytope is regular if it has a sufficient degree of symmetry.
- An n-polytope is regular if any set consisting of a vertex, an edge containing it, a 2-dimensional face containing the edge, and so on up to n−1 dimensions, can be mapped to any other such set by a symmetry of the polytope.
So for example, the cube is regular because if we choose a vertex of the cube, and one of the three edges it is on, and one of the two faces containing the edge, then this triplet, or flag, (vertex, edge, face) can be mapped to any other such flag by a suitable symmetry of the cube.
[edit] Complex polytopes
A complex number has a real part, which is the bit we are all familiar with, and an imaginary part, which is to do with the square root of minus one. A unitary space has its x, y, z, etc. coordinates as complex numbers. This effectively doubles the number of dimensions. A polytope constructed in such a unitary space is called a complex polytope. Shepherd first published a paper on Regular complex polytopes in 1952, and Coxeter published a book with the same title in 1974.
[edit] Abstract regular polytopes
See: Abstract regular polytope
In the 20th century, some important developments were made. The symmetry groups of the classical regular polytopes were generalised into what are now called Coxeter groups. Coxeter groups also include the symmetry groups of regular tessellations of space or of the plane. For example, the symmetry group of an infinite chessboard would be a Coxeter group.
In the 1960s Branko Grünbaum issued a call to the geometric community to consider more abstract types of regular polytopes that he called polystromata. He developed the theory of polystromata, showing examples of new objects he called regular apeirotopes, that is, regular polytopes with infinitely many faces. A simple example of an apeirogon would be a zig-zag. It seems to satisfy the definition of a regular polygon — all the edges are the same length, and all the angles are the same. More importantly, perhaps, there are symmetries of the zig-zag that can map any pair of a vertex and attached edge to any other.
Grünbaum also discovered the 11-cell, a beautiful four-dimensional self-dual object whose facets are not icosahedra, but are "hemi-icosahedra" — that is, they are the shape one gets if one considers opposite faces of the icosahedra to be actually the same face (Grünbaum, 1977). The hemi-icosahedron has only 10 triangular faces, and 6 vertices, unlike the icosahedron, which has 20 and 12.
This concept may be easier for the reader to grasp if one considers the relationship of the cube and the hemicube. An ordinary cube has 8 corners, they could be labeled A to H, with A opposite H, B opposite G, and so on. In a hemicube, A and H would be treated as the same corner. So would B and G, and so on. The edge AB would become the same edge as GH, and the face ABEF would become the same face as CDGH. The new shape has only three faces, 6 edges and 4 corners.
A few years after Grünbaum's discovery of the 11-cell, H. S. M. Coxeter independently discovered the same shape. He had earlier discovered a similar polytope, the 57-cell (Coxeter 1982, 1984).
Unfortunately perhaps, the study of polystromata fell by the wayside, as mathematicians turned their interest to other similar abstract geometric concepts, including the concepts of buildings and geometries, abstract polytopes, Euler posets and others. The 11-cell and 57-cell remain important examples of (in particular) abstract regular polytopes.
An abstract regular polytope is defined as a set, supposed to represent the set of vertices, edges, faces and so on of a polytope, with an idea of which of these "lie on" which others. Certain restrictions are imposed on the set that are similar to properties satisfied by the classical regular polytopes (including the Platonic solids). The restrictions, however, are loose enough that regular tessellations, hemicubes, and even objects as strange as the 11-cell or stranger, are all examples of regular polytopes. The theory has been developed largely by Egon Schulte and Peter McMullen (McMullen, 2002), but other researchers have also made contributions.
[edit] Constructions
[edit] Polygons
The traditional way to construct a regular polygon, or indeed any other figure on the plane, is by compass and straightedge. Constructing some regular polygons is very simple (the easiest is perhaps the equilateral triangle), some more complex; some are impossible ("not constructible"). The simplest few regular polygons that are impossible to construct are the n-sided polygons with n equal to 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 18, 19, 21,...
Constructibility in this sense refers only to ideal constructions with ideal tools. Of course reasonably accurate approximations can be constructed by a range of methods; while theoretically possible constructions may be impractical.
[edit] Polyhedra
Euclid's Elements gave what amount to ruler-and-compass constructions for the five Platonic solids. (See, for example, Euclid's Elements.) However, the merely practical question of how one might draw a straight line in space, even with a ruler, might lead one to question what exactly it means to "construct" a regular polyhedron. (One could ask the same question about the polygons, of course.)
The English word "construct" has the connotation of systematically building the thing constructed. The most common way presented to construct a regular polyhedron is via a fold-out net. To obtain a fold-out net of a polyhedron, one takes the surface of the polyhedron and cuts it along just enough edges so that the surface may be laid out flat. This gives a plan for the net of the unfolded polyhedron. Since the Platonic solids have only triangles, squares and pentagons for faces, and these are all constructible with a ruler and compass, there exist ruler-and-compass methods for drawing these fold-out nets. The same applies to star polyhedra, although here we must be careful to make the net for only the visible outer surface.
If this net is drawn on cardboard, or similar foldable material (for example, sheet metal), the net may be cut out, folded along the uncut edges, joined along the appropriate cut edges, and so forming the polyhedron for which the net was designed. For a given polyhedron there may be many fold-out nets. For example, there are 11 for the cube, and over 900000 for the dodecahedron. Some interesting fold-out nets of the cube, octahedron, dodecahedron and icosahedron are available here.
Numerous children's toys, generally aimed at the teen or pre-teen age bracket, allow experimentation with regular polygons and polyhedra. For example, klikko provides sets of plastic triangles, squares, pentagons and hexagons that can be joined edge-to-edge in a large number of different ways. A child playing with such a toy could re-discover the Platonic solids (or the Archimedean solids), especially if given a little guidance from a knowledgeable adult.
In theory, almost any material may be used to construct regular polyhedra. Instructions for building origami models may be found here, for example. They may be carved out of wood, modeled out of wire, formed from stained glass. The imagination is the limit.
[edit] Higher dimensions
In higher dimensions, it becomes harder to say what one means by "constructing" the objects. Clearly, in a 3-dimensional universe, it is impossible to build a physical model of an object having 4 or more dimensions. There are several approaches normally taken to overcome this matter.
The first approach is to embed the higher-dimensional objects in three-dimensional space, using methods analogous to the ways in which three-dimensional objects are drawn on the plane. For example, the fold out nets mentioned in the previous section have higher-dimensional equivalents. Some of these may be viewed at [1]. One might even imagine building a model of this fold-out net, as one draws a polyhedron's fold-out net on a piece of paper. Sadly, we could never do the necessary folding of the 3-dimensional structure to obtain the 4-dimensional polytope, or polychoron, because of the constraints of the physical universe. Another way to "draw" the higher-dimensional shapes in 3 dimensions is via some kind of projection, for example, the analogue of either orthographic or perspective projection. Coxeter's famous book on polytopes (Coxeter, 1948) has some examples of such orthographic projections. Other examples may be found on the web (see for example [2]). Note that immersing even 4-dimensional polychora directly into two dimensions is quite confusing. Easier to understand are 3-d models of the projections. Such models are occasionally found in science museums or mathematics departments of universities (such as that of the Université Libre de Bruxelles).
The intersection of a four (or higher) dimensional regular polytope with a three-dimensional hyperplane will be a polytope (not necessarily regular). If the hyperplane is moved through the shape, the three-dimensional slices can be combined, animated into a kind of four dimensional object, where the fourth dimension is taken to be time. In this way, we can see (if not fully grasp) the full four-dimensional structure of the four-dimensional regular polytopes, via such cutaway cross sections. This is analogous to the way a CAT scan reassembles two-dimensional images to form a 3-dimensional representation of the organs being scanned. The ideal would be an animated hologram of some sort, however, even a simple animation such as the one shown can already give some limited insight into the structure of the polytope.
Another way a three-dimensional viewer can comprehend the structure of a four-dimensional polychoron is through being "immersed" in the object, perhaps via some form of virtual reality technology. To understand how this might work, imagine what one would see if space were filled with cubes. The viewer would be inside one of the cubes, and would be able to see cubes in front of, behind, above, below, to the left and right of himself. If one could travel in these directions, one could explore the array of cubes, and gain an understanding of its geometrical structure. An infinite array of cubes is not a polytope in the traditional sense. In fact, it is a tessellation of 3-dimensional (Euclidean) space. However, a 4-dimensional polychoron can be considered a tessellation of a 3-dimensional non-Euclidean space, namely, a tessellation of the surface of a four-dimensional sphere.
Locally, this space seems like the one we are familiar with, and therefore, a virtual-reality system could, in principle, be programmed to allow exploration of these "tessellations", that is, of the 4-dimensional regular polytopes. The mathematics department at UIUC has a number of pictures of what one would see if embedded in a tessellation of hyperbolic space with dodecahedra. Such a tessellation forms an example of an infinite abstract regular polytope.
Normally, for abstract regular polytopes, a mathematician considers that the object is "constructed" if the structure of its symmetry group is known. This is because of an important theorem in the study of abstract regular polytopes, providing a technique that allows the abstract regular polytope to be constructed from its symmetry group in a standard and straightforward manner.
[edit] Regular polytopes in nature
[edit] Polygons
Numerous regular polygons may be seen in nature. In the world of minerals, crystals often have faces which are triangular, square or hexagonal. Quasicrystals can even have regular pentagons as faces. Another fascinating example of regular polygons occurs when the the cooling of lava forms areas of tightly packed hexagonal columns of basalt, which may be seen at the Giant's Causeway in Ireland, or at the Devil's Postpile in California.
The most famous hexagons in nature are found in the animal kingdom. The wax honeycomb made by bees is an array of hexagons used to store honey and pollen, and as a secure place for the larvae to grow. There also exist animals who themselves take the approximate form of regular polygons, or at least have the same symmetry. For example, starfish display the symmetry of a pentagon or, less frequently, the heptagon or other polygons. Other echinoderms, such as sea urchins, sometimes display similar symmetries. Though echinoderms do not exhibit exact radial symmetry, jellyfish and comb jellies do, usually fourfold or eightfold.
Radial symmetry (and other symmetry) is also widely observed in the plant kingdom, particularly amongst flowers, and (to a lesser extent) seeds and fruit, the most common form of such symmetry being pentagonal. A particularly striking example is the Starfruit, a slightly tangy fruit popular in Southeast Asia, whose cross-section is shaped like a pentagonal star.
Moving off the earth into space, early mathematicians doing calculations using Newton's law of gravitation discovered that if two bodies (such as the sun and the earth) are orbiting one another, there exist certain points in space, called Lagrangian points, where a smaller body (such as an asteroid or a space station) will remain in a stable orbit. The sun-earth system has five Lagrangian points. The two most stable are exactly 60 degrees ahead and behind the earth in its orbit; that is, joining the centre of the sun and the earth and one of these stable Lagrangian points forms an equilateral triangle. Astronomers have already found asteroids at these points. It is still debated whether it is practical to keep a space station at the Lagrangian point — although it would never need course corrections, it would have to frequently dodge the asteroids that are already present there. There are already satellites and space observatories at the less stable Lagrangian points.
[edit] Polyhedra
Each of the Platonic solids occurs naturally in one form or another.
[edit] Higher polytopes
For the most part, it is obvious that higher polytopes cannot exist in a three-dimensional world. In cosmology and in string theory, physicists commonly model the Universe as having many more dimensions. It is possible that the Universe itself has the form of some higher polytope, regular or otherwise. Astronomers have even searched the sky in the last few years, for tell-tale signs of a few regular candidates, so far without success.[citation needed]
[edit] See also
[edit] References
- Bridge, N. J. (1974), "Faceting the dodecahedron", Acta Crystallographica Section A 30(4): 548–552
- (Coxeter, 1948) Coxeter, H. S. M.; Regular Polytopes, (Methuen and Co., 1948).
- (Coxeter, 1974) Coxeter, H. S. M.; Regular Complex Polytopes, (Cambridge University Press, 1974).
- (Coxeter, 1982) Coxeter, H. S. M.; Ten Toroids and Fifty-Seven hemi-Dodecahedra Geometrica Dedicata 13 pp87–99.
- (Coxeter, 1984) Coxeter, H. S. M.; A Symmetrical Arrangement of Eleven hemi-Icosahedra Annals of Discrete Mathematics 20 pp103–114.
- (Coxeter, 1999) Coxeter, H. S. M.; Du Val, P.; Flather, H. T.; Petrie, J. F.; The Fifty-Nine Icosahedra (Tarquin Publications, Stradbroke, England, 1999)
- (Cromwell, 1997) Cromwell, Peter R.; Polyhedra (Cambridge University Press, 1997)
- (Curl, 1991) Curl, R. F.; Smalley, R. E.; Fullerenes, Scientific American 265 4 (1991) pp32–41.
- (Euclid) Euclid, Elements, English Translation by Heath, T. L.; (Cambridge University Press, 1956).
- (Grünbaum, 1977) Grünbaum, B.; Regularity of Graphs, Complexes and Designs, in Problèmes Combinatoires et Théorie des Graphes, Colloquium Internationale CNRS, Orsay, 260 pp191–197.
- (Haeckel, 1904) Haeckel, E.; Kunstformen der Natur (1904). Available as Haeckel, E.; Art forms in nature (Prestel USA, 1998), ISBN 3-7913-1990-6, or online at http://caliban.mpiz-koeln.mpg.de/~stueber/haeckel/kunstformen/natur.html
- (Lindemann, 1987) Lindemann F.; Sitzunger Bayerische Akademie Der Wissenschaften 26 (1987) pp625–768.
- (McMullen, 2002) McMullen, P.; Schulte, S.; Abstract Regular Polytopes; (Cambridge University Press, 2002)
- (Sanford, 1930) Sanford, V.; A Short History Of Mathematics, (The Riverside Press, 1930).
- (Schläfli, 1855), Schläfli, L.; Reduction D'Une Integrale Multiple Qui Comprend L'Arc Du Cercle Et L'Aire Du Triangle Sphérique Comme Cas Particulières, Journal De Mathematiques 20 (1855) pp359–394.
- (Schläfli, 1858), Schläfli, L.; On The Multiple Integral ∫ndxdy...dz, Whose Limits Are p1=a1x+b1y+ ... +h1z>0, p2 > 0,...,pn > 0 and x2 + y2 + ... + z2 < 1 Quarterly Journal Of Pure And Applied Mathematics 2 (1858) pp269–301, 3 (1860) pp54–68, 97–108.
- (Schläfli, 1901), Schläfli, L.; Theorie Der Vielfachen Kontinuität, Denkschriften Der Schweizerischen Naturforschenden Gesellschaft 38 (1901) pp1–237.
- (Shephard, 1952) Shephard, G.C.; Regular Complex Polytopes, Proc. London Math. Soc. Series 3, 2 (1952) pp82–97.
- (Smith, 1982) Smith, J. V.; Geometrical And Structural Crystallography, (John Wiley and Sons, 1982).
- (Van der Waerden, 1954) Van der Waerden, B. L.; Science Awakening, (P Noordhoff Ltd, 1954), English Translation by Arnold Dresden.
[edit] External links
- Olshevsky, George, Regular polytope at Glossary for Hyperspace.
- Stella: Polyhedron Navigator Tool for exploring polyhedra and printing nets
- Ernst Haeckel's Kunstformen der Natur online (German)
- Interesting fold-out nets of the cube, octahedron, dodecahedron and icosahedron
