Talk:5-cube

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Mathematics Low‑priority This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics Low This article has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.

Please add net of penteract.Tatsh 14:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

A net usually only goes down one dimension, so a net of tesseract facets would exist in 4D. I guess you could consider a net down two dimensions, like drawing 12 line segment graph and calling it an edge-net of a cube, but you'd lose the face information. So a Penteract could have a cell-net in that way. Tom Ruen 01:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

The net would have 10 tesseracts in it. You would have one tesseract, with 8 more adjacent to it sharing cells, thus making a 4D cross. One of the arms of the cross would extend and have an extra tesseract on it. So it would look like a 4D version of the tesseract's net. The folding up works the same way.

Analogously, the 5-simplex's net would have 6 5-cells: one in the centre, and 5 more adjacent to it sharing cells, making a 4D radiating arrangement of 5-cells. It should go on that way up the dimensions. (Still thinking about the nets for the n-orthoplices, though.) Double sharp (talk) 13:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I have an alternate 2-d projection of the penteract which can be seen here: Mathy Doodles Is it worth adding to the page? DenisMoskowitz 17:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry; I was kinda grasping the tesseract article, but this shit has got to be made up. --Soakologist 09:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

The math is easy enough, an E₅ vector space, but trying draw useful pictures does get pretty crazy. Tom Ruen 01:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. We may calculate it (and if we can calculate it and prove it, it's true), but visualizing it, let alone developing an intuition for it, is a task of epic proportions. Hell, the number of humans who can do that with the 4th dimension is slim at best; 5th dimension is simply asking for too much of 3 dimensional beings. I would like to see someone try to visualize the higher dimensions. Jaimeastorga2000 13:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oh yeah? Then what about all those people who have solved the 5-dimensional Rubik's cube? I kid you not, somebody has actually solved the 5D equivalent of the Professor's Cube (see the Hall of Insanity linked above).

(OK, so nobody has solved the Magic 120-cell yet (see 120-cell), but that doesn't mean they don't try!)—Tetracube (talk) 20:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Someone has now. Professor M. Fiendish, Esq. 03:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

The article does not mention the connection to the Penrose rhombs (though the other article does). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply