| Site Map | Polytopes | Dynkin Diagrams | Vertex Figures, etc. | Incidence Matrices | Index |
In 2000 Klitzing published[1] on segmentotopes in general resp. his research on convex segmentochora in special. Segmentotopes are polytopes which bow to the following conditions:
The first condition shows that the circumradius is well defined. Moreover, in union with condition 3 this implies that all 2D faces have to be regular. The sandwich type 2nd condition implies that all edges, which aren't contained completely within one of the hyperplanes, would join both, i.e. having one vertex each in either plane. Thence segmentotopes have to be monostratic. In fact, segmentotopes are the monostratic orbiforms. (Orbiforms, a terminus which had been created several years later only, just use the first and third condition of those.) Finally it follows, that the bases have to be orbiforms, while all the lacing elements have to be (lower dimensional) segmentotpes.
The naming of individual segmentotopes usually is based on the 2 base polytopes: top-base polytope atop bottom-base polytope. Symbolically one uses the parallelness of those bases: Ptop || Pbottom. (For the smaller segmentotopes the choice of bases need not be unique.)
Segmentotopes are closely related to lace prisms. In fact those concepts have a large common intersection, but they are not identical. While lace prisms need an axis of symmetry (in fact one which is describable as Dynkin symbol), one uses the terminus "axis" in the context of segmentotopes only in the sense of the line defined by the centers of the circumspheres of d-1 dimensional bases. (Thus the topic of axial polytopes does more relate to lace towers (as multistratic generalizations of lace prisms) than to segmetotopes. None the less there is a large overlap.) – Note that the radius R of the d-1 dimensional circumsphere used for a segmentotpal base of dimension d-k might well be larger than the radius r of its d-k dimensional circumsphere: for k > 1 the latter might well be placed within the former with some additional shift s: R2 = r2 + s2. For a simple example just consider squippy, the 4-fold pyramid, which is just half of an oct, when being considered as line || triangle: the subdimensional base, the single edge, there is placed off-set.
Just as polytopes are distinguished dimensionally as polygons, polyhedra, polychora, etc.
so too are segmentotopes.
The only segmentogons (without any further adjectivic restriction) clearly are
- regular triangle (point || line) and
- square (line || line).
Segmentohedra already include infinite series like
- pyramids (base being 2 < n/d < 6: point || {n/d}),
- prisms (bases being 2 < n/d: {n/d} || {n/d}),
- antiprisms and retroprisms (bases being 2 < n/d resp. 3/2 < n/d < 2: {n/d} || {n/(n-d)}),
- cupolae and cuploids(*) (top base being 6/5 < n/d < 6, d odd resp. even: {n/d} || {2n/d}),
- cupolaic blends(*) (top base being 6/5 < n/d < 6, d odd: ( {2n/d}[2{n/d}]{2n/d} ) || {4n/2d}).
(*) Grünbaumian bottom base understood to be withdrawn.
For convex ones d clearly has to be 1 and several of the above series then become finite.
Polychora generally have the disadvantage not being visually accessible. Segmentochora are not so hard for that: Just consider the 2 base polyhedra displayed concentrically, perhaps slightly scaled, while the lacings then get slightly deformed. Mathematically speaking, axial projections (view-point at infinity) and central projections (finite view-point), either one being taken on the axis for sure, from 4D onto 3D generally are well "viewable" for such monostratic figures. Especially when using real 3D graphics (like the here used VRMLs) instead of further projections onto 2D as in usual pictures: Note that all pictures at "segmentochoron display" within individual polychoron files will be linked to such VRML files.
| fore color | back color | explanation |
red |
- | Ptop |
blue |
- | Pbottom |
gold |
- | lacing edges |
| - | white |
spherical geometry |
| - | light yellow |
euclidean geometry |
| - | light green |
hyperbolic geometry |



| ortho n-gon | n-prism | gyrated n-prism | 2n-prism | n-antiprism | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| pt || n-p | pt || n-ap | point | |||
| line || ortho n-gon | line || n-p | line segment | |||
| n-g || n-p | n-g || gyro n-p | n-g || 2n-p | n-g || n-ap | n-gon | |
| 2n-g || n-p | 2n-g || n-ap | 2n-gon | |||
| n-p || n-p | n-p || gyro n-p | n-p || 2n-p | n-prism | ||
| 2n-p || 2n-p | 2n-prism | ||||
| n-ap || n-ap | n-antiprism |
Just as used within Johnson solids several of the above segmentochora allow diminishings. Those generally break some symmetries of one or both bases, and therefore too of the axial symmetry. Thus there is no longer a unifying symmetry according to which a Dynkin symbol could be designed, being the premise for lace prisms. Even so, such diminished ones are fully valid segmentotopes (following the above 3 conditions). An easy 3D example could be again line || triangle, the alternate description of the above mentioned squippy. The easiest 4D one clearly is squippypy (i.e. a 1/4 of the hex). – Gyrations in some spare cases might apply as well, even so those in general would conflict to the requirement of exactly 2 vertex layers.
But there is also a generic non-lace-prismatic convex segmentochoron with octahedral symmetry at one base, with icosahedral symmetry at the other. (The common subsymmetry clearly is the pyrital. But that one does not bow to Dynkin symbol description.) That one uses as faces 1 cube (as bottom base), 6 trip (as line || square), 12 squippy (as triangle || line), 8 tet (as triangle || point), and 1 ike (as top base).
|
|
|
In 2012 two sets of closely related monostratic polytopes where found:
In fact the constraint, of the lacing edges all having unit lengths too, results in some specific shift values for the base polyhedra. As those base polyhedra on the other hand are not degenerate, this conflicts to having a common circumsphere in general: within the case of pyramids only the special value n=3 results in a true convex segmentochoron (being the hex), within the case of cupolae only the special value n=2 results in a true convex segmentochoron (being trip || refl ortho trip). Even so, the values n=3,4,5 resp. n=2,3,4,5 would well generate monostratic convex regular-faced polychora (CRFs).
The closeness even could be pushed on a bit. If one of the (equivalent) bases each, which are segmentohedra in turn, would be diminished by omitting the smaller top face, i.e. maintaining therefrom only the larger bottom face, those would re-enter the range of valid segmentochora again: {n} || gyro n-py resp. {2n} || n-cu. In fact, here the necessary shifts of the bases could be assembled at the degenerate base alone. There a non-zero shift is known to be allowed.
Without narrowing those findings, those 2 families could be de-mystified a bit by using different axes: the pyramidal case is nothing but the bipyramid of the n-antiprism, while the cupolaic case is nothing but the bistratic lace tower xxo-n-oxx oxo&#xt.
Besides of considering 2 parallel hyperplanes cutting out monostratic layers of larger polychora, in 2012 (and more deeply in 2013) considerations about 2 intersecting equatorial hyperplanes were done. Those clearly cut out wedges. The specific choice of those hyperplanes made up the terminus lunae. Only the CRF ones were considered. The following lunae are known so far:
---- 5D ----
© 2004-2013 | top of page |