Talk:Triaugmented triangular prism/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Dedhert.Jr (talk · contribs) 12:32, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I will be reviewing this article. This is the first time I review it, so there is a chance that I will require a second opinion. I will try my best, although my English is not excellently professional. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:32, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am still warming up, so I can only give this:

"A triaugmented triangular prism is a convex polyhedron with 14 equilateral triangles as its faces", while "tetrakis triangular prism, tricapped trigonal prism, etc. means that a polyhedron with 14 triangular faces". Umm, is there any between the equilateral and triangular faces? I can only know that the "equilateral" means the same sides of a triangle, but I have no idea about what "triangular" means in this context. Does it mean it is some kind of arbitrary side of a triangle, i.e., scalene? Dedhert.Jr (talk 12:37, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

#Construction: "When a polyhedron has only equilateral triangles as its faces, like this one, it is called a deltahedron." What do you indicate here as you write the phrase "like this one"? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

#Fritsch graph It was used by Fritsch & Fritsch (1998) as a small counterexample to Alfred Kempe's false proof of the four color theorem using Kempe chains, Small counterexample? Would you like to explain what this means? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:53, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find Soifer graph on a search. Perhaps it is not created at all. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:53, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Triangular means shaped like a triangle. The faces are triangles. Their shape is triangular.

Like this one = like the triaugmented triangular prism.

Re "Would you like to explain what this means?": like everything in the lead, the detailed explanation is later. In this case, "later" means in the caption of the illustration in the "Fritsch graph" section.

We do not have an article on the Soifer graph. Nevertheless, that phrase has been used in the mathematical literature. About 18 times, according to Google Scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Re:"Would you like to explain what this means?": I mean, what is the meaning of "small counterexample" anyway? I can only understand "counterexample" meaning, but I've never heard of the adjective word "small". My apologies if I still didn't catch it at all. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, small means "as few vertices as possible, but there is another one with one fewer edge". This is explained, in the section I pointed to. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

#Dual associahedron Is $A_{3}$ means a group here? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:19, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a notation used to classify lots of different types of mathematical objects, including the ones named here. Some of them are groups (more precisely Lie groups). I think it might make the article too technical to go into more detail about how all these different kinds of objects correspond to the 3d associahedron, but each of the linked articles talks about how similar notation is used for the linked topics. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:29, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So in conclusion, what does $A_{3}$ means? I think it would more helpful to add an explanation about $A_{3}$ in this particular context. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It means "the third thing in the A-series of the classification of this sequence of mathematical objects". It has a different meaning for each type of object, that would be complicated and technical and off-topic to explain in detail. For instance, the A3 Dynkin diagram is a diagram of little circles and lines between them that looks like — there are three little circles, and (unlike some other Dynkin diagrams) the lines are not decorated with numbers. The A means that it is just a straight row of undecorated circles and lines, and the 3 means that there are three circles. That's probably the easiest one to explain but the least helpful in terms of understanding how it relates to the associahedron. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does it a little bit MOS:SANDWICH between pictures in Fritsch graph and Dual associahedron? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I deliberately tried to offset these two images vertically by enough distance so that, if you narrow down your screen width small enough for sandwiching to be relevant, you will also cause the text to spread out into enough more rows that they would be one above the other rather than overlapping. That's what I see when I try it in my browser, anyway. By the time I make it narrow enough for each image to be about 1/3 of a column wide, with 1/3 of a column of text between them, they do not have any rows of text in common with each other. Do you see something different? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:52, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I see it. But I may have two options for such this case: Maybe you can reorder Fritsch graph and Dual associahedron. If you have any objection, then I suggest using {{clear}}, although it would leave some gaps. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
{{Clear}} makes

big ugly blank spaces in articles. MOS:SANDWICH says that left-right-facing images should be used with caution because they MIGHT cause problems. They would cause problems for images directly aligned left to right, as in the example in MOS:SANDWICH, but in this article they are not directly aligned and they do not cause any actual problems. Your comment suggests that you are trying to follow rules for the sake of following rules rather than taking the effort to think about what the rules actually mean. Pay more attention to the part of MOS:SANDWICH that says why it makes that suggestion: because that image placement "can create a distasteful text sandwich (depending on platform and window size)". But in this case it doesn't, so the rule is unnecessary and enforcing it is being bureaucratic for the sake of being bureaucratic rather than being in any way constructive. More, it would cause problems (the unnecessary whitespace) rather than actually fixing any problem.

And no, I cannot reorder the sections. Having a tall left image too close to the references section is another way to cause much bigger problems: it screws up the alignment of the columns in the entire references section. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:24, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry for that, and I would be more careful in giving suggestions next time. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:34, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...and the pyramid has dihedral angles of half that of the regular octahedron. "that" in this sentence is indicating the prism, which is inscribed in a $J_{51}$ ? Not quite understand about it. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:05, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are reading it wrong. In this sentence "that" stands for "dihedral angles". But I rewrote it to expand that part a little. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for copyediting. But I still don't get it: The prism itself has square-triangle dihedral angles $\pi /2$ ... . Does "square-triangle" mean both square and triangle faces create a dihedral angle, which is $\pi /2$ ? Aside from it, ...and the square-triangle angles are half that. Umm, what is that again "that" means? Apologies for the second asking. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:53, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...and on the square-to-square prism edges... "square-to-square prism"? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:56, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

#Dual associahedron: I can see two right parentheses in the first sentence in the second paragraph. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:35, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

#Fritsch graph These six graphs come from the six Whitney triangulations that, when their triangles are equilateral, have positive angular defect at every vertex. This makes them a combinatorial analogue of the positively curved smooth surfaces. Really? How do these graphs can makes them a combinatorial analogue of the positively curved smooth surfaces? And what does "combinatorial analogue" means here? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 04:09, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

#Fritsch graph "the bottom edge in the illustration"? Is the illustration here mean the Fritsch cover book? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 13:08, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]