Talk:Octahedron

Thanks @David Eppstein for splitting this page out. It generally seems like a good idea. Do you think we could still keep some kind of summary section called regular octahedron near the top here? I expect many inbound links to octahedron will be looking for regular octahedron instead, as will many readers arriving from web search, etc. –jacobolus (t) 02:10, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:As long as it's so short as to make it obvious that the other article is the main one and expansions should go there, I think this is a fine idea. Also I have not had time to make any efforts to fix the many inbound links that probably intended to go to regular octahedron and now go here, so that should also probably be done. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:43, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but have one heard the name of dual of gyrobifastigium anyway in some sources? It seems I could not find it anyway, but the way of constructing it is [https://archive.bridgesmathart.org/2016/bridges2016-635.pdf available]. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 16:32, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:I didn't find a name, but I did at least find a source mentioning it. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:39, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Hexagonal frustum has obviously six quadrilaterals and two quadrilaterals. If this is not topological, so what would it be? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:27, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:It has exactly the same pattern of faces, edges, and vertices as a hexagonal prism. We should not create separate entries for every minor distortion of a shape; I think one entry per topological equivalence class is enough. Prisms and frusta are in the same equivalence class, just as all of the different suggested geometries for Dürer's solid are all in the same equivalence class as each other. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:39, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::Oh no wonder. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:28, 20 June 2025 (UTC)