Talk:Kepler–Poinsot polyhedron

message: Some of the history looks a little inaccurate:
Jamnitzer's 'stellated dodecahedron' does not have the face planes aligning from arm to arm - there is no evidence that he understands it as a dodecahedron. Nor is there any evidence that he understands this or his 'great dodecahedron' as being regular.
Uccello is sometimed credited with a marble tarsia, depicting a small stellated dodecahedron, in the floor of St. Mark's Basilica, Venice. But did he ever 'draw' one as the page says? Please either provide a reference or replace the comment with the tarsia (illustrated in Cromwell).
Poinsot used a definition of convexity, under which all these figures and their faces are convex (no concave vertices, y'see). This definition stuck for many decades. I am not sure when the modern usage arose, but is it worth noting the change?
I have a bit more to add when/if I get the time, eg Cauchy confirmed that Poinsot's list was complete, and Bertrand obtained them by facetting the Platonic solids. Steelpillow 20:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the look! I only sectioned the History information unchanged since I didn't take time to confirm or add to to it. Feel free to expand, or correct as you can. Tom Ruen 20:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Enjoy. Steelpillow 12:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: I reckon the small stellated dodecahedron has false vertices or false edges but not both.  If the concave part of an edge is false, its ends must coincide with ends of the true edges, which must thus be true vertices.  So let's use another figure for the examples.
The great stellated dodecahedron has uncontroversially false edges, but they are all hidden.  The great icosahedron and great dodecahedron have visible false edges and false vertices. —Tamfang (talk) 05:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That was my bad. Well spotted, thanks. Hopefully I have now corrected it. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm satisfied. —Tamfang (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  false elements 

message: A good move to Kepler–Poinsot polyhedra BUT it really should be singular, like polyhedron and uniform polyhedron and Johnson solid. 21:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  polyhedra vs solid 

message: Couldn't the stellated octahedron, a.k.a. stella octangula or great octahedron, be a spikeball (Kepler-Poinsot solid)? It's non-convex and it has congruent faces and vertices. We've been discussing this on another talk page, but it's been dismissed as "probably original research"... 68.173.113.106 (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No. As I have told you in another discussion, it is not a polyhedron, it is a polyhedral compound. The Kepler-Poinsot solids are all individual polyhedra. I'd stop wasting your time on this idea if I were you. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stella octangula? 

message: Would it be helpful to add a column for "stellation core" to the summary diagram? It is "icosahedron" for the GI, "dodecahedron" for the other three. And maybe also for the convex hull? Maproom (talk) 11:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stellation cores 

message: The Wolfram article Great Icosahedron shows a construction of this solid that is based on the excavated dodecahedron (calling it "squashed"). But the description rather sounds like the equivalent with convex in place of self-intersecting hexagons.
Is there is a relevant relationship between the gI and the excavated dodecahedron or that other solid? And does someone happen to know a name for that thing witht the pentagrams?  You might know this.
Greetings, Watchduck (quack) 23:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great icosahedron without pyramids 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: (non-admin closure) NOT MOVED  User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:00, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 24 October 2021