Quanta Magazine needs to toss out this Messr.Jayadev Athreya, David Aulicino, Patrick Hooper as bogus.

Computer Graphics is never admissable into proofs or understanding Geometry. A computer is never able to do Geometry, only the human mind can do geometry (along with many animals). But a machine that is not living is unable to do geometry.

There is a picture of this uniqueness in Quanta-magazine, 2020 "Mathematicians Report New Discovery About the Dodecahedron"
"Suppose you stand at one of the corners of a Platonic solid. Is there some straight path you could take that would eventually return you to your starting point without passing through any of the other corners?"
Drs.Jayadev Athreya, David Aulicino, Patrick Hooper may have been victims of Computer Graphing rather than realized fundamental truths of geometry. This happened to me also with the case of tiling a sphere, that the computer gives a image as though the

sphere was tiled by hexagons. And computers can make a picture that is so much con-art and deceiving of the human eyes, like optical illusions.

Alright it looks to me that Quanta-magazine is partly anti-science and anti-math as to publish rubbish of a Dodecahedron.

Looking at the picture they include a region of the vertex-- is it 1mm from the vertex point?? Is it 1.5mm, is it 2mm. Then they provide no definition of "straightline path", can it vary in direction every face of the dodecahedron, or is it meant to be

a cut like a conic section.

The only figure on my desk that qualifies as cutting the figure in half and a path returns to vertex is the Pyramid of its apex vertex, and only its apex vertex.

I deem this article as math rubbish, that deceives more than elucidates geometry.

Since when is a vertex a *region of vertex*? What is a straightline path if not a murky and obfuscation?

Perhaps the only lesson to learn from this anti-math of dodecahedron, is that the Computer Graphics destroys the truth of geometry and all geometry proofs starting with Appel & Haken 4 Color Mapping to Hales's claim of Kepler Packing is flawed and

error filled math, is anti-math.

Every geometry entry into mathematics is bogus math, because a computer has no biological mind to see into Space. A computer prints out what the person wants to see and hear and not the reality of the world of geometry.

In geometry and proofs of geometry, no computer should step foot into.

On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 1:07:45 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 11:27:41 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Is the 4 sided plane the largest plane in terms of sides for the 3D 10 Grid? At the moment, I cannot envision nor picture any plane with 5 sides or 6 or more. I suspect 4 is the maximum.

The shape of 3D 10 Grid is a cube shape, so I am asking if there is a cross section of the inside of a cube that yields a 5 or higher sided figure? None that I can see, for the 6 faces of the cube only allow 4 sided 2D figures to emerge or 3 sided

triangular planes. I cannot retrieve a pentagon plane nor a hexagon plane. And proofs should be provided.


Interesting question, if I make a conic sectioning cut into the cube or rectangular box, the largest number of sides is a 4 sided planar figure resultant.

What happens with a cut into the Dodecahedron?? Can I get a 5 sided planar cut figure? Indeed I can. But the Icosahedron looks like it can deliver a 10 sided planar figure result.

With the Octahedron a cut similar to a conic cut that is perpendicular resulting in hyperbola gives a 6-sided hexagon planar resultant yet the cube gives no more than 4-sided result.

A vertical planar cut into Dodecahedron gives a 6-sided figure.

AP

AP's 262nd book of science// Computers will never master geometry for they are algebra machines, never geometry machines

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Cornell Univ. is too stupid in math to understand Computer proofs are not proofs at all, but spun spin insanity. As more morons feed input into a computer, input that is calibrated to give what the person wants as output. And a Computer easily spits out
graphics that defy commonsense, such as the time I believed hexagons can tile a sphere surface because I was lulled into accepting a Computer Graphic Image. Same goes for this nonsense of straightline paths on Dodecahedron that pass through only one
vertex. Why, you can make a Computer spit out an image of how a sphere is a cube. Or, worse, you can make a Computer spit out an image that the slant cut of cone is Ellipse, all because that is exactly what you programmed the dingbat (sorry, I promised
never to use animals any more, but could not resist) machine to do.



Cornell Univ and its ArXiv
Submitted on 9 Nov 2018 (v1), last revised 20 Dec 2019 (this version, v2)] Platonic solids and high genus covers of lattice surfaces

Jayadev S. Athreya, David Aulicino, W. Patrick Hooper
We study the translation surfaces obtained by considering the unfoldings of the surfaces of Platonic solids. We show that they are all lattice surfaces and we compute the topology of the associated Teichmüller curves. Using an algorithm that can be used
generally to compute Teichmüller curves of translation covers of primitive lattice surfaces, we show that the Teichmüller curve of the unfolded dodecahedron has genus 131 with 19 cone singularities and 362 cusps. We provide both theoretical and
rigorous computer-assisted proofs that there are no closed saddle connections on the surfaces associated to the tetrahedron, octahedron, cube, and icosahedron. We show that there are exactly 31 equivalence classes of closed saddle connections on the
dodecahedron, where equivalence is defined up to affine automorphisms of the translation cover. Techniques established here apply more generally to Platonic surfaces and even more generally to translation covers of primitive lattice surfaces and their
Euclidean cone surface and billiard table quotients.
Comments: With an appendix by Anja Randecker. 55 pages. 12 Figures. This version is updated following a referee report. A website with additional graphics and auxiliary files, including nets of dodecahedra can be found at: this http URL
Subjects: Geometric Topology (math.GT)
Cite as: arXiv:1811.04131 [math.GT]
(or arXiv:1811.04131v2 [math.GT] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1811.04131

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 8:59:29 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Quanta Magazine needs to toss out this Messr.Jayadev Athreya, David Aulicino, Patrick Hooper as bogus.

Computer Graphics is never admissable into proofs or understanding Geometry. A computer is never able to do Geometry, only the human mind can do geometry (along with many animals). But a machine that is not living is unable to do geometry.

There is a picture of this uniqueness in Quanta-magazine, 2020 "Mathematicians Report New Discovery About the Dodecahedron"
"Suppose you stand at one of the corners of a Platonic solid. Is there some straight path you could take that would eventually return you to your starting point without passing through any of the other corners?"
Drs.Jayadev Athreya, David Aulicino, Patrick Hooper may have been victims of Computer Graphing rather than realized fundamental truths of geometry. This happened to me also with the case of tiling a sphere, that the computer gives a image as though

the sphere was tiled by hexagons. And computers can make a picture that is so much con-art and deceiving of the human eyes, like optical illusions.


Alright in the bathe tonight, I figured out a counterproof. And much of this will set me up for a future Overhaul of Euclidean Geometry textbook, where I overhaul all the axioms of Euclidean Geometry because Space is discrete in coordinate points, not a
continuum.

The very first axiom of (1) there is a point with no length, width, and breadth, and the second axiom (2) Two points determine a line which has length but no width and no depth. Both need more clarity. In a discrete world the point and line need actual
substance rather than some idealism delusion. The point needs a tiny length, width, and depth and the line needs a tiny width and depth. This tiny finite metric is obtained from the difference in pi as 3.14159... and 3.162277.... the square root of 10.
For the 10 Grid, the tiny metric is 3.16- 3.14 = 0.02.

So the overhauled first two axioms of Plane Geometry are (1) There is a point with a tiny metric length, width, and depth, and (2) There is a line which is determined by 2 points and has a length and a tiny width and depth.

Now I need those two ideas to explain the Counterproof to Drs.Jayadev Athreya, David Aulicino, Patrick Hooper Dodecahedron. I need those tiny metrics, which depend on what Grid System I am working in, say 10 or 100 or 1000 etc. And a perpendicular cut,
like in conic sections or a cut at an angle. In particular a cut through the Apex point of a vertex of dodecahedron. So how can you cut a "singular point"? Certainly not in Old Math Geometry but in New Math geometry in 10 Grid we have the metric of 0.02
to play with in 10 Grid, in 100 Grid we have 0.021 to play with.

So say the cut in a dodecahedron is a straight 90 degree perpendicular, then we have the cut divide the 0.02 with 0.01 on both sides of the cut. What if the cut is at 30 degree angle or 60 degree angle or somewhere between 0 and 90 degrees?

COUNTERPROOF: The cut at 90 degrees creates a straightline segment at the Dodecahedron apex point of vertex. And for the straightline created at the vertex, it creates a straightline that circumnavigates around the dodecahedron and is forced to run into
the south-pole vertex if we call our starting vertex a north pole vertex.

Now a pyramid escapes this northpole and southpole with its apex vertex and follows the Messr.Jayadev Athreya, David Aulicino, Patrick Hooper dodecahedron claim but only for the singular apex vertex of pyramid.

All the 5 Platonic Solids every one of its vertices has a northpole and south pole vertex, even the tetrahedron with a offset northpole and southpole vertex.

This means that the claim by Messr.Jayadev Athreya, David Aulicino, Patrick Hooper dodecahedron is a false claim. And where they messed up is in their idea of a straightline. From what I can make out, they define their straightline from a planar Net of
12 pentagons.

In ascii-art the Net usually looks like this:
...H..H.....H..H
H H H H H H
.....H..........H

And from what I gather, their straightline is across this flat plane Net that represents the Dodecahedron, but when you actually fold this Net up into 3D the straightline dissolves into zig zags.

The Straightline should be the same as Conic Section Cuts with a knife that cuts at a angle into a solid.

And what the AP counterproof says, is that any solid figure with vertices and each has both a north and south pole vertex cannot follow the claims of Messr.Jayadev Athreya, David Aulicino, Patrick Hooper dodecahedron.

AP, King of Science, especially Physics and Logic

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 4:08:37 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 8:59:29 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Quanta Magazine needs to toss out this Messr.Jayadev Athreya, David Aulicino, Patrick Hooper as bogus.

Computer Graphics is never admissable into proofs or understanding Geometry. A computer is never able to do Geometry, only the human mind can do geometry (along with many animals). But a machine that is not living is unable to do geometry.

Algebra follows patterns and does not require a machine to "see" objects in space or space itself. And a computer can be programmed to do algebra.

But a machine can never be programmed to see into geometry.

And ever since the sham fakery of Appel & Haken 4 Color Mapping then the Hales's Kepler Packing that no-one has recognized the limitations of computers. Now we have this fakery of dodecahedron. And the dodecahedron sham is quite visible.

AP

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

I may have to put into the title of this book "Grotesque Examples of where Computer graphics is destroying true Geometry"

I can think of the Dandelin b.s.

The recent dodecahedron b.s.

The several decades back of a hexagon tiling of sphere, that led me astray also.

The Appel & Haken 4 Color Mapping

The Hales's Kepler Packing.

The very recent overturning by me of the silly 5 Points needed to determine a unique ellipse in plane-- For I am sure this is a case of rampant stupidity where Computer Graphics were called in by the legions and armyful of nerds making computer graphs of
5 arbitrary points. When AP proves that since 3 arbitrary points in plane determines a unique circle in that plane, it also determines a Unique Ellipse in that plane.
The nerd mathematicians need 5 points for they silly and daft computers while AP with a brain of Logical Reasoning needs just 3 arbitrary points.

AP, King of Science, especially Physics and Logic

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)