Talk:List of Johnson solids

edit needed

There is a spelling error on Johnson Solid 43, where pentagonal is spelled as pentaognal. Please fix when possible :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.114.101.117 (talk) 23:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Copyedited. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

symmetry order

The table lists four forms with symmetry group C1 and order 2. Should some of them be Cs or Ci? —Tamfang (talk) 07:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Fixed, all 4 are Cs. Tom Ruen (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Help!!

Hello,@Watchduck and David Eppstein:

Why only 51 polyhedra exist in the list?

Thanks for your attention, Hirbod Foudazi2 (talk) 05:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Because anonymous block-evading vandals a couple weeks ago. Fixed. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Hirbod Foudazi2 (talk) 07:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Adding additional tables of properties

I've added a table of surface areas. Next I plan to add one for volumes. I would also like to include a third table with in-, mid-, and circumraiii and a fourth with some graph-theoretic properties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Octonius (talk • contribs) 05:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I apologize for the response after two years, but NO! This article is supposed to list the Johnson solids only. I think the number of its components (vertices, edges, and faces), and the metric properties (surface area and volume) are sufficient enough. Inradius/circumradius/midradius are mostly original research, and not all of them have those properties. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 03:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

regularity

A polyhedron is said to be regular if its faces are equilateral and equiangular. Regular polyhedra with the additional property of vertex-transitivity are known as uniform polyhedra.

Johnson solids' faces are regular (equilateral and equilateral). A regular polytope usually means uniform and with only one kind of facet. —Tamfang (talk) 06:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

But here, we are focus on polyhedron only. There is no relation between higher polytopes than the definition of Johnson solid. It is intend to define what Johnson solid is by breaking the terms and explain their meaning step-by-step per WP:ONEDOWN. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 08:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Are you saying that, if we're concerned only with three dimensions, regular changes its meaning?

The problem goes away if we trim the exposition here; we need not cover the ground of Johnson solid and Uniform polyhedron and Regular polyhedron. —Tamfang (talk) 00:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Our article regular polyhedron gives what I expected the meaning to me: for 3d polyhedra, regular means flag-transitive. That does not match the definition given in this list, which seems wrong to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:01, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

@David Eppstein, @Tamfang. Okay. I have deleted the meaning of regular polyhedron unrelated with Johnson solids, including exclusion by the author's definition. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 10:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

convexity and collinearity

A polyhedron is considered to be convex if: [...] None of its edges are colinear—they are not segments of the same line.

What is an example of a polyhedron that meets the other criteria but not this one? —Tamfang (talk) 06:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I imagine it's intended to cover the case of, for instance, a cube in which one of its edges has been subdivided into two collinear edges, turning two of the square faces into degenerate pentagons. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Better visualisation link

Currently we have two links showing alternate visualisations of Johnson's Solids:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130601082835/http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/symmetry/johnsonp.htm

and

https://www.orchidpalms.com/polyhedra/johnson/johnson.html

While these links do contain visualisations of the Johnson's Solids, these links are old and lack functionality that a new link could provide. I propose that we replace these two links with this one:

https://polyhedra.tessera.li/

This link covers everything provided by the current two links and more. The edit seems reasonable to me, but it was flagged as spam. Any insights on why this happened, or assistance with updating the link, would be appreciated. HappyWrap (talk) 02:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support The suggested link is much better in my opinion. As it has much better pictures in the following ways:

1. It does not look anywhere near as bad as the web.archive.org link pictures does.
2. I think that the new link is easier on the eyes.
3. The new link is significantly newer by who knows how many years.

With the above reasons in mind I fully support this change. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 03:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't mind to change those two. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 07:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

We're not supposed to use external links for things that are or could be in the article, and we've got a whole table with images already. I wouldn't be opposed if somebody wanted to upload a bunch of STL models onto Commons and use those instead, though. I'll also ping @David Eppstein: who has reverted the addition of this link several times. MrOllie (talk) 01:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

The reason the new link is better is that it extends what is written in the article instead of just restating it like the two old links did (images link and visualisations link). The new link shows the relationships between each of the solids through animated symmetry operations whereas the current article and old links just showed static images of the solids with minimal space given to showing the relations between solids. If nothing else, the new link is newer and easier on the eye like Sheriff mentioned. I'm not sure why there is so much resistance to this simple update. HappyWrap (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)