· Portal  Help Search Members Calendar 
Welcome Guest ( Log In  Register )  Resend Validation Email 
Welcome to Dozensonline. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access memberonly sections, and use many memberonly features such as customizing your profile, and sending personal messages. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. (You will be asked to confirm your email address before we sign you on.) Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: 
Myrtone 
Posted: May 13 2016, 07:23 AM

Casual Member Group: Members Posts: 53 Member No.: 569 Joined: 22March 10 
There are three regular tilings on a plane, equilateral triangles, squares and hexagons, note that six equilateral triangles can be arranged as a regular hexagon. In any case, the number of sides of these polygons, this also being the number of corners, is always 3smooth.
There are five platonic solids, and I have noticed that the number of edges, faces and corners of a platonic solid is always 5smooth,* specifically, it is a factor of 5! or twelfty as Wendy calls it. All three regular planar tilings and all five platonic solids, consist of regular polygons constructible with a compass and straightedge. So 5smooth numbers seem to have some significance in geometry. *All 3smooth numbers are also 5smooth, but some 5smooth numbers are not 3smooth. 
Oschkar 
Posted: May 13 2016, 07:56 AM

Dozens Disciple Group: Members Posts: 575 Member No.: 623 Joined: 19November 11 
This has to do with the fact that the symmetry group in 3 dimensions with the largest order is the icosahedral group, which has exactly order 120.
You really can’t expect any primes larger than 5 in the order of a symmetry group, since its associated polyhedron should have a face with a multiple of that number of sides. Three heptagons can’t meet at a vertex in spherical space, so there can’t be a regular polytope of any dimension greater than 2 with heptagons for faces, which would mean that there shouldn’t be any polyhedral symmetry group with 7 as a factor. Only in six dimensions and onward do we see the factor 7 in the order of a point group, but that’s because the sixdimensional simplex has 7 vertices. The same argument applies for all higher primes: there are no uniform polytope symmetry groups with prime p in their prime factorization from dimension 3 to p − 1. I don’t know enough about this to prove that there can’t be a 3D symmetry group with order, say, 1440, but at least I tried to explain why this sort of numbers have to be 5smooth. 
Myrtone 
Posted: May 15 2016, 03:14 AM


Casual Member Group: Members Posts: 53 Member No.: 569 Joined: 22March 10 
I'm not familiar with symmetry groups, has this been discussed before. So there are five platonic solids and the symmetry group with the largest order is the factorial of the number of platonic solids.
Okay, so this explains why the number of edges, faces and corners of a platonic solid is always 5smooth, specifically a factor of twelfty. But what about that fact that the two fundamental regular polygons that tessellate on a plane (six equilateral triangles meeting at a common point make a regular hexagon) both have 3smooth numbers of sides?
But can you, or anyone else here, prove that a regular polygon that tessellates on a plane must have a 3smooth number of sides, specifically a factor of twelve? Let E be the number of corners, K be the number of edges and F be the number of faces. Apply this to the following platonic solids and the result is as follows: *Tetrahedron  30E+10K+30F = 360 *Cube  15E+10K+20F and Octahedron  20F+10K+15F both equal 360 *Dodecahedron  6E+4K+10F and Icosahedron  10E+4K+6F both equal 360. 

wendy.krieger 
Posted: May 15 2016, 08:50 AM

Dozens Demigod Group: Members Posts: 2,432 Member No.: 655 Joined: 11July 12 
The actual symmetries that occur in folded geometry are not smooth numbers at all.
All of those nifty theorems designed to describe Platonic symmetries, are eventually used to look in group theory, which at best, describe colour patterns on the infinite tilings, or polytopes that exist abstractly. The idea of 'folded geometry' is then that we can identify a cell that is a leftturning knight's move away, or something that is 2½ hexagons one way, and up one edge. The different regular colourings of the square lattice, represent the gaussian integers, and one finds separate primes of the form 2, 4x+1 (eg 5, 13, 17, 29, 37, ... can divide the square of radius, without dividing the coordinates, and it is possible to divide the square tiling into tilings of these numbers). The hexagonal tiling represents the Eisenstein integers, where the primes are of the form 3, 6x+1. One finds then 3, 7, 13, 19, 31, 37, ... in the squares of radii. The primes that appear in the pentagon figures are 5, 10x+1, 10x+9, so one finds 11, 19, 29, 31, ... as potential numbers. Divisors 11 and 19 appear among the chords of the {3,3,5} and {5,3,3}, for example. The groups that one finds in abstractly extending the regular definitions to 'folded geometries' (Coxeter and Moser wrote a book on this 'Generators of Finite Groups and Maps'), are numbers like 660, 1092, and their various multiples, the actual smooth numbers are not really in this series. Coxeter describes things like the 'elevencell' and '57cell', derived from the abstract painting of {3,5,3} and {5,3,5} respectively, but these do not lead to multiples of 7, the first has the same abstract group of 660 as the tiling of {5,5}_5. One of the earliest numbers to turn up in my investigation of the heptagon, is 1079. This is 13*83, and one finds that the heptagonnumbers are those of the form 7, 14x+1, 14x1. Smooth numbers turn up in the general euclidean dimensions, because they involve a lot of simplexsymmetries: in fact of all of the mirror groups in all dimensions, only one does not have a simplexsymmetry for its face: {3,4,3}. 