Tetrahedron splitting/subdivision - MathOverflow most recent 30 from http://mathoverflow.net2013-05-21T18:50:27Zhttp://mathoverflow.net/feeds/question/28615http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/rdfhttp://mathoverflow.net/questions/28615/tetrahedron-splitting-subdivisionTetrahedron splitting/subdivisionSigTerm2010-06-18T11:27:18Z2010-06-19T08:39:09Z
<p>Given a regular Tetrahedron <em>A</em> (i.e. each edge of <em>A</em> has same length), is it possible to split <em>A</em> into several smaller regular tetrahedra of equal size? I.e. smaller tetrahedra should completely fill volume of <em>A</em>, and they should not overlap.</p>
<p>This can be done in 2D with a triangle and square, and it can be done in 3D with cube (i.e. you can split cube into several smaller cubes of equal size). But I see no way to do same thing in 3D with tetrahedron. </p>
<p>If this can be done, how (how smaller tetrahedra should be positioned)?<br>
If this cannot be done, is there a proof that this is impossible?</p>
<p>P.S. I'm not a mathematician, and this is not a homework, but I'd like to know how/if this can be done.</p>
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/28615/tetrahedron-splitting-subdivision/28618#28618Answer by Anton Petrunin for Tetrahedron splitting/subdivisionAnton Petrunin2010-06-18T11:46:45Z2010-06-19T08:39:09Z<p><strong>Answer 1:</strong> Look what happens on a face of the big tetrahedron where some edges of small ones come together: you have to make angle 180° out of some dihedral angles of the tetrahedra (which is about 70°) --- that is impossible.</p>
<p><strong>Answer 2:</strong> There is the so-called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehn_invariant" rel="nofollow">Dehn invariant</a>. If a polyhedron $X$ is split into a number of polyhedra $Y_1,Y_2,\dots,Y_n$ then the Dehn invariant of $X$ is equal to the sum of the Dehn invariants of $Y_i$.</p>
<p>For the regular tetrahedron, the Dehn inveriant is nonzero and proportional to the length of a side.
Suppose you could split a regular tetrahedron with side $a$ into a number of tetrahedra with sides $a_1, a_2,\dots, a_n$. Then from the volume you have
$$a_1^3+a_2^3+\dots+a_n^3=a^3$$
and from the Dehn invariant you have
$$a_1+a_2+\dots+a_n=a.$$
It follows that there is no nontrivial splitting.</p>
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/28615/tetrahedron-splitting-subdivision/28620#28620Answer by Joseph O'Rourke for Tetrahedron splitting/subdivisionJoseph O'Rourke2010-06-18T12:10:47Z2010-06-18T12:10:47Z<p>The answer is: No. There is a somehwat rambling discussion <a href="http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/497054.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Let $B$ be a smaller tetrahedron that is jammed into the apex of $A$. It fills the solid angle there completely.
Let $e$ be a base edge of $B$. Then one cannot fill the neighborhood of $e$ by gluing in
further regular tetrahedra along it. One way to see this is that the dihedral angle of the tetrahedron is $\delta = \cos^{-1}(1/3) \approx 70.5^\circ$, and the dihedral angle along $e$ to be filled
is $\pi - \delta \approx 109.5^\circ$, which cannot be formed from copies of $\delta$.</p>
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/28615/tetrahedron-splitting-subdivision/28634#28634Answer by Henry Segerman for Tetrahedron splitting/subdivisionHenry Segerman2010-06-18T14:29:37Z2010-06-18T14:29:37Z<p>It is however possible to split a regular tetrahedron into four smaller regular tetrahedra and one regular octahedron, and there are other possibilities based on the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrahedral-octahedral_honeycomb" rel="nofollow">tetrahedral-octahedral honeycomb</a>.</p>
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/28615/tetrahedron-splitting-subdivision/28657#28657Answer by Mikola for Tetrahedron splitting/subdivisionMikola2010-06-18T19:11:59Z2010-06-18T19:11:59Z<p>This question has already been pretty handily answered by Anton, but I figured I'd add another (somewhat ridiculous) proof to his list:</p>
<p>Answer 3: Suppose that we had an infinite subdivision of regular tetrahedra. Then we would also have a crystallographic lattice with tetrahedral symmetry, since this structure would have to tile across 3D space. However, the classification of crystallographic lattices rules out this possibility!</p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystallographic_group" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystallographic_group</a></p>