Classifying 3D Shapes into Finite Categories

  • Thread starter Thread starter Aeneas
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    3d Finite Shapes
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.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top