Talk:5-cube

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Untitled

Please add net of penteract.Tatsh 14:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A net usually only goes down one dimension, so a net of tesseract facets would exist in 4D. I guess you could consider a net down two dimensions, like drawing 12 line segment graph and calling it an edge-net of a cube, but you'd lose the face information. So a Penteract could have a cell-net in that way. Tom Ruen 01:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The net would have 10 tesseracts in it. You would have one tesseract, with 8 more adjacent to it sharing cells, thus making a 4D cross. One of the arms of the cross would extend and have an extra tesseract on it. So it would look like a 4D version of the tesseract's net. The folding up works the same way.

Analogously, the 5-simplex's net would have 6 5-cells: one in the centre, and 5 more adjacent to it sharing cells, making a 4D radiating arrangement of 5-cells. It should go on that way up the dimensions. (Still thinking about the nets for the n-orthoplices, though.) Double sharp (talk) 13:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have an alternate 2-d projection of the penteract which can be seen here: Mathy Doodles Is it worth adding to the page? DenisMoskowitz 17:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry; I was kinda grasping the tesseract article, but this shit has got to be made up. --Soakologist 09:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The math is easy enough, an E₅ vector space, but trying draw useful pictures does get pretty crazy. Tom Ruen 01:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. We may calculate it (and if we can calculate it and prove it, it's true), but visualizing it, let alone developing an intuition for it, is a task of epic proportions. Hell, the number of humans who can do that with the 4th dimension is slim at best; 5th dimension is simply asking for too much of 3 dimensional beings. I would like to see someone try to visualize the higher dimensions. Jaimeastorga2000 13:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah? Then what about all those people who have solved the 5-dimensional Rubik's cube? I kid you not, somebody has actually solved the 5D equivalent of the Professor's Cube (see the Hall of Insanity linked above).

(OK, so nobody has solved the Magic 120-cell yet (see 120-cell), but that doesn't mean they don't try!)—Tetracube (talk) 20:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has now. Professor M. Fiendish, Esq. 03:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Penrose rhombs

The article does not mention the connection to the Penrose rhombs (though the other article does). –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]