| Revision as of 23:10, 16 March 2006 editBatmanand (talk | contribs)Rollbackers3,783 edits →shutup and give me my answer.: removed uncivil personal attack← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 20:43, 24 November 2024 edit undoJacobolus (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users35,726 editsm Undid revision 1259372481 by 174.88.106.113 (talk)Tag: Undo | ||
| (500 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1= | |||
| AxelBoldt removed the statement: | |||
| {{WikiProject Mathematics|small= |importance= Top |comment= }} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 150K | |||
| |counter = 1 | |||
| |algo = old(365d) | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 4 | |||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| |archive = Talk:Polygon/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | |||
| {{archives|age=365}} | |||
| == "900-gon" listed at ] == | |||
| Strictly speaking, every polyhedron is also a polygon as is every polytope, since they all have angles. | |||
| ] | |||
| An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect ] and has thus listed it ]. This discussion will occur at ] until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ]]] 11:40, 8 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| == "120-gram" listed at ] == | |||
| ] | |||
| An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect ] and has thus listed it ]. This discussion will occur at ] until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ]]] 12:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| == Can We Add Names for Fake Fractional Polygons? == | |||
| with the simple claim: | |||
| What's a <math>\frac{1}{2}</math>-gon's name? Or a <math>7 \frac{13}{19}</math>-gon too? We need the fractional names! ] (]) 22:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| Polyhedra are not polygons. | |||
| :Misplaced Pages is not the place for publishing or asking about ] and ]. And this talk page is not the place for anything other than possible improvements to the polygon article based on published references. You need to look elsewhere for your speculation. —] (]) 22:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Maybe somewhere else? I didn't mean '''''just''''' on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 22:49, 14 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::To repeat: this talk page is not the place for anything other than possible improvements to the polygon article. Other discussion does not belong here. —] (]) 22:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| : A 7{{frac|13|19}}-gon, ] <math>\{\frac{146}{19}\}</math>, is one of many 146-grams (the denominator can be any odd number 1<n<73). So what? —] (]) 07:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| Since it is obvious that polyhedron have multiple angles, and hence are polygonal, I'd like to give him a chance to explain why he removed true information. | |||
| :And your { {{frac|1|2}} } is a ] of a ]. —] (]) 04:33, 18 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank You! Also, can you make the page for a 146-gon? I don't want it to be a redirect. It's true name, I think, is a Hecatontetracontakaihexagon. I'll get work on the Regular Polygon db of it. It sadly won't be completely finished, but it's okay, right? ] (]) 15:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::NO. There is nothing to say about this polygon, specifically, that is not true of polygons in general. It is not ], in the sense that Misplaced Pages demands for articles: there are not multiple publications that cover it in-depth, independent of other polygons. —] (]) 15:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| ::::What if I make a... never mind. I can't even make websites! I'll ask someone ''else'' to make the page! Yeah, that's a good idea! Also, for now, it ''can'' be a redirect. Okay? I'm very sorry. :) ] (]) 13:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| Simple: because it's not true at all. "Polygon" is almost universally defined as a 2-dimensional figure. I don't know of any mathematics text or course that treats it as a superclass that includes 3-d polyhedra. Terms here should be used as they are commonly used in academia. --] | |||
| Didn't see my talk edit yet?I would like you to check before long. ] (]) 07:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| Lee, | |||
| perhaps you would like to suggest what term should be used for the class of objects that have multiple angles, regardless of the dimentionality? Then we could put in a reference to that class of objects in this article. | |||
| I had never heard the term polytope before I got involved with Misplaced Pages. Does the concept of the angle between two planes make sense? I, admittedly, have found very little accessible material on these topics. -- BenBaker | |||
| Maybe a phrase such as: | |||
| Even though strictly speaking, every polyhedron has multiple angles, as does every polytope, they are not considered as polygons as the angles between their faces are not two dimensional. They can be classified as 'technical-term', however. | |||
| :"Polytope" ''is'' the general term, although it is typically only used to refer to 4-d and higher figures (because the 2- and 3-d figures already have names). It is, nonetheless, proper to refer to polygons and polyhedra as subclasses of polytopes. --LDC | |||
| ---- | |||
| Mathematical terms are not defined etymologically. "Polygon" may mean "many angles" in Greek, but that doesn't mean that anything with many angles is called a polygon in mathematics (and yes, you can have ] between planes). Polygons are two-dimensional figures that enclose an area with straight lines. We could have links to polytopes and polyhedra I suppose. --AxelBoldt | |||
| ---- | |||
| I am not aware of ''any'' word in ''any'' context that is defined by its etymology. Words mean whatever they are defined to mean, regardless of where they happen to come from. Adding an explicit statement to that effect in this article would be silly, because that's just a case of understanding the nature of the English language and has nothing to do with polygons. This article is about polygons, which are flat. Now, if you want to add some statement to the effect that polygons are the two-dimensional instance of the more general class of polytopes, that's entirely appropriate. --LDC | |||
| ------ | |||
| "Words mean whatever they are defined to mean, regardless of where they happen to come from." -- Indeed. That's the Humpty Dumpty argument! (Through the Looking-Glass) | |||
| I'd like to mention the term "n-gon" on this page, since that's the link I followed to get here. Also, the table is somewhat inconsistent: a "Triangle" may be regular or not. A "Square" is regular by definition. The other terms ''usually'' are taken to mean the regular form -- in my experience it's more common to see a phrase like "an irregular pentagon" than "a regular pentagon". | |||
| :Fixed. --] | |||
| On the dimension issue, it might be fair to mention that a polygon is a 2D polytope, but it's not terribly interesting. The question of a "broken" polygon in higher dimensions -- ie a set of non-planar points joined by a closed, simple path -- is perhaps interesting, but completely breaks the definition of a polytope as a convex hull of point, and there's no longer any notion of area or volume. I suppose then it's merely a path. -- Tarquin | |||
| ------ | |||
| Hi. I added a proposed taxonomy, but it does have problems. There is the problem that under the definitions that I left, a complex polygon may be considered convex. Is this indeed the case? If so, the two versions of convex are surely nevetheless considered distinct, so Simple convex and complex convex are distinct classes, both denoted 'convex'? Or am I just being too hopeful in proposing a tree-based taxonomy? | |||
| ---- | |||
| I would prefer a more simple and complete description of the sum of inner angles in an n-gon. Allthough the one used looks simple, it is based on foreknowledge of the sum of angles in a triangle. I sugest something like the following description(better phrased probably). | |||
| (For lack of a better word or expression(i can't seem to find it), i will use the term ''outer angle'' for the outside coresponding angle which is 180 - inner angle.)<br> | |||
| The sum of the outer angles of an n-gon is a full circle.<br> | |||
| The average size of an outer angle is therefore 360/n.<br> | |||
| The average size of an inner angle is therefore 180 - (360/n).<br> | |||
| The sum of inner angles is therefore n * (180 - (360/n)) <=> 180n - 360 <=> 180 * (n-2).<br> | |||
| (exscuse the language, english is not my native tongue). ] 09:19 21 Jul 2003 (UTC) | |||
| :I added something along these lines. - ] 09:48 21 Jul 2003 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| :''its vertices, listed in order as the area is circulated in counter-clockwise fashion,'' | |||
| Is "circulated" the right verb here? ] 21:48, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC) | |||
| Mathematicians are notoriously incompetent historians. Gauss NEVER gave a proof of the necessity of the constructibility of the regular ''n''-gon. WANTZEL proved this in 1837. If you read otherwise, it's because mathematicians are sloppy historians. ] | |||
| == Names of Polygons?? == | |||
| *A ] has 100 sides. | |||
| *A ] has 1000 sides. | |||
| *A ] has 10,000 sides. | |||
| *A "]" has 1,000,000 sides. | |||
| How about 100,000 sides?? ] 21:53, 1 May 2004 (UTC) | |||
| Is it necessary to have "googolgon"? The word is an irregular formation and there is no evidence of its ever having been used. | |||
| == Enneagon/nonagon == | |||
| The table of names of polygons specifies for a nine-sided polygon the name "enneagon" and then admonishes "(avoid 'nonagon')". | |||
| The discussion further down includes the sentence, "But beyond nonagons and decagons, professional mathematicians prefer the aforementioned numeral notation." | |||
| Personally, I think "nonagon" is in sufficiently widespread use to be acceptable even if inconsistent -- much the same way that "quadrilateral" is more widely accepted than "tetragon". So I'd prefer to see the table changed than the sentence in the discussion. | |||
| How do other people feel? | |||
| -Heath | |||
| === Response === | |||
| To whoever wrote the above discussion, here are some comments. First, when we sign Misplaced Pages articles, you don't write a word like "Heath"; you just write <nowiki> ~~~~ </nowiki>. I've studied the history of the talk page and found out that you are not a registered Wikipedian. Second, it already says just above the table that "the triangle and quadrilateral are exceptions", as well as a comment saying "(or tetragon)" meaning that quadrilateral is a more well-known word than tetragon, but that both words are equally proper. Third, the info on ennea vs. nona as the prefix for 9 is already mentioned at the bottom of the ] article, saying that "In practice, people often use Latin nona- for 9 instead of Greek ennea-." ] 21:11, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC) | |||
| === Response === | |||
| Thanks for the note on the Wiki etiquette -- I'm not (yet) a registered Wikipedian; still learning my way but trying to be constructive in the process. <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> is a tip I hadn't yet seen. | |||
| The point that I was trying to make originally is that the table specifically says to "avoid" the word ''nonagon'', while further down the same page the article actually uses that word. The ] article does comment further on this, but someone reading ''this'' article for the first time is not likely to have seen that other article (I sure hadn't!), and is likely to find the usage in this article contradictory to its own recommendations. | |||
| ] 03:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC) (Heath) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Currently, several Misplaced Pages articles on polygons between 20 and 100 sides are on Vfd and I want to see if anyone plans on creating a ] article that is similar to the ] article. Anyone in favor of doing so?? ] 22:56, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC) | |||
| There was a section "1.1 Naming polygons" added on 2005/04/08. I think it explains it well and there is no need to add the following 6 names to the table: | |||
| tetracontagon 40 | |||
| ... | |||
| enneacontagon 90 | |||
| as 208.170.24.180 did on 2005-12-09 15:25:07. | |||
| I plan to erase them. Let me know if you have a reason why not do it. | |||
| --] 01:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Vfd consensus == | |||
| What is the Vfd consensus of the polygon articles put on Vfd about a week ago?? Has it been reached yet?? ] 20:27, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == "Moving around a simple n-gon" == | |||
| This is only a very small problem but I didn't think I should make the edit myself just in case. When I first read this I thought it was talking about moving the whole polygon around. I quickly realised what it really meant, but thought it should be slightly clarified. | |||
| Moving around on the edges of a simple n-gon | |||
| There could also be a link on edges if anyone changes it. | |||
| --??? | |||
| I don't understand the following sentence: "There could also be a link on edges if anyone changes it." | |||
| --] 01:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == a picture of all shapes from 3 sided to 100 sided == | |||
| == an example of shapes from 3 to 100 sided == | |||
| == hexagonnaiae- or hexaconta-? == | |||
| Which of these is it? 71.137.255.152 reports it as "hexagonnaiae" though all the other -conta- prefixes seems to suggest otherwise. | |||
| The edit was probably vandalism. I reverted it. ] 21:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| This is only minor non-mathematical semantics, but shouldn't the addition "-gon" to a word be a suffix, not a prefix, as used in the article? | |||
| ] 05:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I hope it's fixed now. --] 05:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 20:43, 24 November 2024
 | This  level-3 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 Archives | |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
"900-gon" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect 900-gon and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 8#900-gon until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:40, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
"120-gram" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect 120-gram and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 8#120-gram until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 12:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Can We Add Names for Fake Fractional Polygons?
What's a -gon's name? Or a -gon too? We need the fractional names! Mariomaker-4 (talk) 22:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
-gon's name? Or a 
-gon too? We need the fractional names! - Misplaced Pages is not the place for publishing or asking about neologisms and original research. And this talk page is not the place for anything other than possible improvements to the polygon article based on published references. You need to look elsewhere for your speculation. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe somewhere else? I didn't mean just on Misplaced Pages. Mariomaker-4 (talk) 22:49, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- To repeat: this talk page is not the place for anything other than possible improvements to the polygon article. Other discussion does not belong here. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe somewhere else? I didn't mean just on Misplaced Pages. Mariomaker-4 (talk) 22:49, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- A 713⁄19-gon, Schläfli symbol , is one of many 146-grams (the denominator can be any odd number 1<n<73). So what? —Tamfang (talk) 07:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- And your { 1⁄2 } is a double cover of a henagon. —Tamfang (talk) 04:33, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thank You! Also, can you make the page for a 146-gon? I don't want it to be a redirect. It's true name, I think, is a Hecatontetracontakaihexagon. I'll get work on the Regular Polygon db of it. It sadly won't be completely finished, but it's okay, right? Mariomaker-4 (talk) 15:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- NO. There is nothing to say about this polygon, specifically, that is not true of polygons in general. It is not notable, in the sense that Misplaced Pages demands for articles: there are not multiple publications that cover it in-depth, independent of other polygons. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- What if I make a... never mind. I can't even make websites! I'll ask someone else to make the page! Yeah, that's a good idea! Also, for now, it can be a redirect. Okay? I'm very sorry. :) Mariomaker-4 (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- NO. There is nothing to say about this polygon, specifically, that is not true of polygons in general. It is not notable, in the sense that Misplaced Pages demands for articles: there are not multiple publications that cover it in-depth, independent of other polygons. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thank You! Also, can you make the page for a 146-gon? I don't want it to be a redirect. It's true name, I think, is a Hecatontetracontakaihexagon. I'll get work on the Regular Polygon db of it. It sadly won't be completely finished, but it's okay, right? Mariomaker-4 (talk) 15:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
, is one of many 146-grams (the denominator can be any odd number 1<n<73). So what? —Didn't see my talk edit yet?I would like you to check before long. 219.104.224.225 (talk) 07:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Categories: