My question is very basic: where can I find a complete (and hopefully selfcontained) proof of the classification of Platonic solids? In all the references that I found, they use Euler's formula $ve+f=2$ to show that there are exactly five possible triples $(v,e,f)$. But of course this is not a complete proof because it does not rule out the possibility of different configurations or deformations. Has anyone ever written up a complete proof of this statement?!

This is a classical question. Here is my reading of it: Why is there a unique polytope with given combinatorics of faces, which are all regular polygons? Of course, for simple polytopes (tetrahedron, cube, dodecahedron) this is clear, but for the octahedron and icosahedron this is less clear. The answer lies in the Cauchy's theorem. It was Legendre, while writing his Elements of Geometry and Trigonometry, noticed that Euclid's proof is incomplete in the Elements. Curiously, Euclid finds both radii of inscribed and circumscribed spheres (correctly) without ever explaining why they exist. Cauchy worked out a proof while still a student in 1813, more or less specifically for this purpose. The proof also had a technical gap which was found and patched up by Steinitz in 1920s. The complete (corrected) proof can be found in the celebrated Proofs from the Book, or in Marcel Berger's Geometry. My book gives a bit more of historical context and some soft arguments (ch. 19). It's worth comparing this proof with (an erroneous) preSteinitz exposition, say in Hadamard's Leçons de Géométrie Elémentaire II, or with an early postSteinitz correct but tedious proof given in (otherwise, excellent) Alexandrov's monograph (see also ch.26 in my book which compares all the approaches). P.S. Note that Coxeter in Regular Polytopes can completely avoid this issue but taking a different (modern) definition of the regular polytopes (which are symmetric under group actions). For a modern exposition and the state of art of this approach, see McMullen and Schulte's Abstract Regular Polytopes. 


I believe Hermann Weyl's classic book 'Symmetry' discusses this question but I can't recall what his approach is (ie, whether he makes use of the Euler formula). 


One place I have seen such results is in Conway et al., Symmetry of things. I am not enough of an expert to be able to comment on the details of the proof. 

