Talk:Cuboctahedron
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| The content of Kinematics of the cuboctahedron was merged into Cuboctahedron on 16 July 2026. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
| This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
The following reference(s) may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
Untitled
It would be fun to add a section Cuboctahedra in the arts, if anyone can remember which episode of Old Star Trek had the badguys zap some of the crew into the form of little plaster cubocs. --Anton Sherwood 01:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- It was By Any Other Name. Joule36e5 (talk) 22:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Then there's the legendary Coriolis stations in Elite. olofito 01:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Geometric relations
I think "L1 ball" means a regular cross-polytope. —Tamfang 06:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, made the change (that sentence was my very first wikipedia contribution!). In other matters, it seems this section can use some cleaning up. The "Dymaxion" sentence, while interesting, doesn't seem to qualify as a geometric relation. There are statements about Johnson solids that are separated and should probably be together. Dshin
surface area
Should we use jpg or svg?
Here's comparison:
Professor M. Fiendish 05:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Pros and cons.
- Pros of the jpg: shading, transparent faced
- Cons: ugly background
- Pros of SVG: infinite res, also transparent faces and bg
- cons: no shading
- pros of png: transparent bg
- cons: no shading, faces arent transparent.
- WE SHOULD USE THE SVG!
- . 2603:7080:17F0:F40:C5B3:920A:CC87:7460 (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
rival coordinates
User:KoenDelaere changed the vertex coordinates to
- (±√2,0,0)
- (0,±√2,0)
- (±1/√2,±1/√2,±1)
User:Tomruen reverted to (±1,±1,0) and its permutations, which are preferred because they're more symmetric; but I'd like to mention for the record that KoenDelaere's version is not wrong – it's an eighth-rotation in (x,y). —Tamfang (talk) 01:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Schläfli symbol
The table at the top right of the article ought, I think, to give its Schläfli symbol as , by analogy with icosidodecahedron. I would change it, but I can't figure out how to get at the table for editing purposes. Maproom (talk) 12:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- There's different notations, see Uniform_polyhedron#Wythoff_construction_operators. They should be consistent in the tables, so I changed it. Tom Ruen (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's now with the tag {{dubious|reason=What is this notation? This is not on the form of a Schläfli symbol.}}. This is Coxeter's extension of a Schläfli symbol. Imagine the CD symbol's one ringed node at the middle left; the numbers represent its two edges. —Tamfang (talk) 22:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Application in cell biology
Amazingly, the cuboctahedron (and a few other recognizable geometric shapes, but mostly cuboctahedra) is the shape taken by "COPII" proteins when they are transported from the "endoplasmic reticulum" to the "golgi apparatus" http://www.nature.com/nrm/journal/v7/n10/images/nrm2025-f2.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.109.69 (talk) 12:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Correction to "Dissection" section, object shown is a square pyramid, not cuboctahedron
(This is the bad section) The cuboctahedron can be dissected into 6 square pyramids and 8 tetrahedra meeting at a central point. This dissection is expressed in the tetrahedral-octahedral honeycomb where pairs of square pyramids are combined into octahedra. Glenneric1 (talk) 13:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- It's a square dipyramid, dissected into cells of the lattice mentioned in the second sentence. A picture of a dissected CO would still be good. —Tamfang (talk) 05:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
In https://archive.org/details/intertwined_polysigned_p3_on_the_equator is possible to look an cuboctahedron compared to the hull made with triangles, similar to the icosidodecahedron
"It is hamiltonian paths."
What is hamiltonian paths? That came out of nowhere.
By the way, how many Hamilton cycles are there? How many Euler cycles? —Tamfang (talk) 01:34, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
- I think that was meant to say "has" instead of "is". I have edited accordingly. — LucasBrown 02:30, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
- hm, I guess I ought to generate a list of Euler cycles. —Antonissimo (talk) 01:02, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
Proposed merge from Kinematics of the cuboctahedron
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@Dedhert.Jr: Hi, what's your objection to the merge? I thought the benefit would be fairly obvious. -- Beland (talk) 02:33, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Beland. I did not say any objection. I asked, where is the discussion? And as I search, I could not find it. Perhaps you can state your reason. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:42, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- If no one has an objection to the merge, there is no need to have a discussion. It can simply be implemented. -- Beland (talk) 02:44, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- I see. If that's the case. I support. Simply unreferenced. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:49, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- If no one has an objection to the merge, there is no need to have a discussion. It can simply be implemented. -- Beland (talk) 02:44, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- support its an article that should be a section inside the Cuboctahedron article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happypenguins82 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
Fuller's claim
I changed the following, original:
- Buckminster Fuller found that the cuboctahedron is the only polyhedron in which the distance between its center to the vertex is the same as the length of its edges. In other words, it has the same length vectors in three-dimensional space, known as vector equilibrium.
The claim attributed to Fuller is obviously false even if only convex polyhedra are considered, as the triangular cupola and triangular orthobicupola share this property. The citation was a dubious "sacred geometry" book that fails WP:FRINGE. I couldn't readily find a better citation, and Fuller's own writings are as incomprehensible to me. I replaced the citation with a "citation needed" and replaced the statement attributed to Fuller with a mathematically correct one, removing the "only." Not ideal but I would say it's an improvement.
I'm aware through osmosis that Fuller did describe the cuboctahedron as "vector equilibrium." I would argue that both the "circumradius = edge length" property and Fuller's fascination with it are notable enough for inclusion and good sources should be out there, but I'm not sure where to look. 11wx (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2026 (UTC)