Timeline for Can sufficiently symmetric polytopes be uniquely reconstructed from their 1-skeleton?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 16, 2018 at 9:43 | history | edited | Martin Sleziak | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added a top-level tag; https://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/1457/why-are-mo-tags-formatted-as-they-are
|
| Aug 16, 2018 at 9:17 | history | edited | M. Winter | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 128 characters in body
|
| Aug 16, 2018 at 9:15 | comment | added | M. Winter | @Dr.RichardKlitzing These terms are new for me and I am not certain about their exact use in polytope theory. I am sorry for this confusion. Here, and in the linked post on Math.SE, by 1-skeleton I mean the graph with no metric information contained. | |
| Aug 15, 2018 at 21:09 | comment | added | Dr. Richard Klitzing | hmm, in the cited Math SE question you used "graph" and I took it there may be wrongly to be the 1-skeleton. But now you even call it yourself such. To me a 1-skeleton is metrically rigid, whereas a graph more has just its combinatorical incidence structure. - Thus any 1-skeleton clearly will provide the defining convex polytope back again, simply use the convex hull. But when removing the metrical informations, i.e. speaking of the mere graph, it gets much worse indeed. --- rk | |
| Aug 14, 2018 at 15:21 | history | edited | M. Winter | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 220 characters in body
|
| Aug 14, 2018 at 15:15 | history | asked | M. Winter | CC BY-SA 4.0 |