Talk:Snub 24-cell

message: That wasn't an error.  0:1:φ:φ2 is equivalent to 0:φ-1:1:φ.  If you prefer the latter, you should also change the edge length to 2/φ (which I find inelegant which is why I used the first form of the coordinates).  —Tamfang 16:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hilariously, "snub octahedron" could mean the icosahedron, the snub cube, or even the compound of four octahedra! 4 T C 13:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hurrah for versatility. —Tamfang (talk) 22:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Whatever the green figure is, it certainly isn't a stereographic projection, which would have curved edges and faces.  —Tamfang 21:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the terminology is unclear, and I prefer Schlegel diagram, but I would say Stereographic projection applies if the vertices are mapped spherically, while the edges are drawn linearly. Tom Ruen 23:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  projection 

message: : Conversely, the 600-cell may be constructed from the snub 24-cell by stellating it with 24 icosahedral pyramids.
Stellation usually means extension of existing facets in their respective hyperplanes, which this clearly isn't. —Tamfang (talk) 17:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's more along the lines of Conway's kis operator than a stellation in the sense of a non-convex regular polytope.—Tetracube (talk) 23:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

text: By Johnson terminology, the term is Augument, like augmented triangular prism. kis is okay too, but more of a topological than geometric operation. Tom Ruen (talk) 00:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

text: OK, I like augmented. I'll update the article.—Tetracube (talk) 02:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What about "cumulated"? Professor M. Fiendish, Esq. 07:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What does that mean?—Tetracube (talk) 17:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

text:  Mathworld has the term at , looks like the Conway kis operator. Tom Ruen (talk) 18:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "stellation" 

message: Hi Tom Ruen,
Is there any particular reason you changed the table in Projections to have width=640? It looks very ugly on my browser because I use large fonts on a high-resolution screen, and forcing the table to be 640 pixels causes too many word-wraps. Does Wikipedia have any guidelines on pixel-widths? In general, I find websites that use pixel widths to render very uglily on my browser because they assume a particular font size (and using that font size will make the text unreadably tiny on my screen). Could we please just let the browser decide how to lay out the table?—Tetracube (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it looked better to balance narrow pictures and narrow paragraphs, but that's my default IE fonts. I can imagine a larger font would format poorly. How about putting the text below each picture? Again, maybe won't help you? Tom Ruen (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose we could, although I thought the whole point of using a table-based layout was so that the text could run alongside the image.—Tetracube (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

text: OK, the double-column format works, too. Thanks.—Tetracube (talk) 06:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Width=640