omnitruncation

Article summary

In geometry, an omnitruncation of a convex polytope is a simple polytope of the same dimension, having a vertex for each flag of the original polytope and a facet for each face of any dimension of the original polytope. Omnitruncation is the dual operation to barycentric subdivision. Because the barycentric subdivision of any polytope can be realized as another polytope, the same is true for the omnitruncation of any polytope. When omnitruncation is applied to a regular polytope (or honeycomb) it can be described geometrically as a Wythoff construction that creates a maximum number of facets. It is represented in a Coxeter–Dynkin diagram with all nodes ringed. It is a shortcut term which has a different meaning in progressively-higher-dimensional polytopes: * Uniform polytope truncation operators ** For regular polygons: An ordinary truncation, t_{0,1}\{ p \} = t\{ p\} = \{ 2p\} . *** Coxeter-Dynkin diagram ** For uniform polyhedra (3-polytopes): A cantitruncation, t_{0,1,2}\{ p,q \} = tr\{ p,q\} . (Application of both cantellation and truncation operations) *** Coxeter-Dynkin diagram: ** For uniform polychora: A runcicantitruncation, t_{0,1,2,3}\{ p,q,r \} . (Application of runcination, cantellation, and truncation operations) *** Coxeter-Dynkin diagram: , , ** For uniform polytera (5-polytopes): A steriruncicantitruncation, t 0,1,2,3,4 {p,q,r,s}. t_{0,1,2,3,4}\{ p,q,r,s \} .…

Key claims

No claims recorded.

Discussion questions

1. Summarise the article in your own words. Which single claim would you verify first, and why?
2. Which claim in this article is most likely to be revised as the sources update? How would you check its current status?
3. If two sources disagreed about one of these facts, what would you need in order to trust one over the other?

Bibliography

No sources recorded.