Timeline for On maximal regular polyhedra inscribed in a regular polyhedron
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 9, 2014 at 10:37 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jan 9, 2014 at 18:34 | |||||
| Jan 9, 2014 at 10:29 | comment | added | mathlove | @BenoîtKloeckner: Well, to be honest, I don't have any good idea to start with to have a rigorous proof. I'm posting the question here just to get some hints to solve it. I don't have any intention to say "please do this on my behalf." I admit that it may sound like so, but I don't think the question is not precise. | |
| Jan 9, 2014 at 10:19 | comment | added | Benoît Kloeckner | I feel your question is not precise enough. It sounds like you are saying "please do that on my behalf". Could you explain what you tried, and which difficulties you are facing? | |
| Jan 8, 2014 at 22:57 | answer | added | Moritz Firsching | timeline score: 19 | |
| Aug 3, 2013 at 14:46 | comment | added | mathlove | @AndréHenriques:No, but in my opinion we don't need to understand 2d version completely. Croft used some theorem, which is related with 'immobile polyhedra'. I think this is a key. | |
| Jul 31, 2013 at 16:56 | answer | added | Anton Petrunin | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jul 31, 2013 at 13:10 | answer | added | Joseph O'Rourke | timeline score: 7 | |
| Jul 31, 2013 at 12:04 | comment | added | André Henriques | Do you know how to deal with the 2-dimensional analog of your problem (n-gon inside m-gon)? I wouldn't attack the 3d problem before having completely understood its 2d baby-version. | |
| Jul 31, 2013 at 6:52 | history | edited | Ricardo Andrade | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
replaced deprecated tag
|
| Jul 31, 2013 at 6:36 | history | asked | mathlove | CC BY-SA 3.0 |