Classifying 3D Shapes into Finite Categories

  • Thread starter Thread starter Aeneas
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    3d Finite Shapes
AI Thread Summary
Classifying all possible 3D shapes into a finite number of categories is impractical due to the infinite complexity of shapes. However, vertices can be classified based on the number of planes used in their construction. For example, a cube and a rectangular prism can be represented as figures with eight 3-plane vertices, using specific notation for angles. Complicated shapes require consideration of various arrangements of vertices in 3D space. Overall, while some classification is possible, it remains a complex challenge.
Aeneas
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
Please can someone tell me whether anyone has managed to classify all possible 3-D shapes into a finite and usefully small number of categories? At school level, most shapes seem to be some part, or combination, of:
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
There are too many impracticalities with what you are trying to do. 3d shapes can be made infinitely complex. You can classify vertices though, using the number of planes that are used construct them as your reference. A cube and rectangular prism alike could then be represented as figures consisting of eight 3-planes vertices, with say the notation 8*(90, 90, 90) to specify the angles that each of the planes represent. Of course, it's not as simple as that when it comes to complicated shapes - the different possible arrangements of the vertices in 3d space have to be taken into account.
 
Last edited:
Many thanks, Werg22.
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top