Skip to main content
13 events
when toggle format what by license comment
S Aug 29, 2022 at 18:04 history bounty ended CommunityBot
S Aug 29, 2022 at 18:04 history notice removed CommunityBot
Aug 27, 2022 at 23:49 comment added Ash While 4-d to 2-d has been what most have attempted so far, I think going to 3-d first will make the attempt easier, & more human readable. I believe there is a 3-d polyhedron who's net will relate near directly to the tesseract's net. Currently studying the deltoidal icositetrahedron; I think taking it's net and treating 16 edges as higher dimensional will reveal some interesting things -- or at least I hope. Really excited for any answer to your question!
S Aug 21, 2022 at 17:00 history bounty started ryu576
S Aug 21, 2022 at 17:00 history notice added ryu576 Draw attention
Aug 16, 2022 at 6:36 comment added ryu576 Reading through the paper, but I found it easier to go from 4-d to 2-d than going from 4-d to 3-d to 2-d. This is because in the 3-d version, you have to keep track of which faces are repeated and this becomes an additional headache.
Aug 15, 2022 at 11:44 comment added Joseph O'Rourke This will not help in the bounds, but one route is to first unfold to $\mathbb{R}^3$ and then unfold to $\mathbb{R}^2$ (rather than directly from 4D to 2D). This was used in Diaz, Giovanna, and Joseph O'Rourke. "Hypercube Unfoldings that Tile R^3 and R^2." arXiv:1512.02086 (2015).
Aug 15, 2022 at 7:10 history edited ryu576 CC BY-SA 4.0
edited body
Aug 15, 2022 at 5:07 history edited ryu576 CC BY-SA 4.0
deleted 3 characters in body
Aug 15, 2022 at 1:49 history edited ryu576 CC BY-SA 4.0
added 39 characters in body
Aug 15, 2022 at 0:16 history edited ryu576 CC BY-SA 4.0
added 29 characters in body
Aug 14, 2022 at 23:33 history edited ryu576 CC BY-SA 4.0
added 22 characters in body
Aug 14, 2022 at 21:16 history asked ryu576 CC BY-SA 4.0