Polyhedron
Definition | A three-dimensional example of the more general polytope in any number of dimensions. |
---|---|
Characteristics | number of faces, topological classification and Euler characteristic, duality, vertex figures, surface area and volume, lines as in geodesics and diagonals, Dehn invariant, highly symmetrical. |
In geometry, a polyhedron (pl.: polyhedra or polyhedrons; from Greek πολύ (poly-) 'many' and ἕδρον (-hedron) 'base, seat') is a three-dimensional figure with flat polygonal faces, straight edges and sharp corners or vertices. The term "polyhedron" may refer either to a solid figure or to its boundary surface. The terms solid polyhedron and polyhedral surface are commonly used to distinguish the two concepts.[1] Also, the term polyhedron is often used to refer implicitly to the whole structure formed by a solid polyhedron, its polyhedral surface, its faces, its edges, and its vertices.
There are many definitions of polyhedra, not all of which are equivalent. Under any definition, polyhedra are typically understood to generalize two-dimensional polygons and to be the three-dimensional specialization of polytopes (a more general concept in any number of dimensions). Polyhedra have several general characteristics that include the number of faces, topological classification by Euler characteristic, duality, vertex figures, surface area, volume, interior lines, Dehn invariant, and symmetry. A symmetry of a polyhedron means that the polyhedron's appearance is unchanged by the transformation such as rotating and reflecting.
The convex polyhedra are a well defined class of polyhedra with several equivalent standard definitions. Every convex polyhedron is the convex hull of its vertices, and the convex hull of a finite set of points is a polyhedron. Many common families of polyhedra, such as cubes and pyramids, are convex.
Definition
[edit]Convex polyhedra are well-defined, with several equivalent standard definitions. However, the formal mathematical definition of polyhedra that are not required to be convex has been problematic. Many definitions of "polyhedron" have been given within particular contexts,[2] some more rigorous than others, and there is no universal agreement over which of these to choose. Some of these definitions exclude shapes that have often been counted as polyhedra (such as the self-crossing polyhedra) or include shapes that are often not considered as valid polyhedra (such as solids whose boundaries are not manifolds). As Branko Grünbaum observed,
"The Original Sin in the theory of polyhedra goes back to Euclid, and through Kepler, Poinsot, Cauchy and many others ... at each stage ... the writers failed to define what are the polyhedra".[3]
Nevertheless, there is general agreement that a polyhedron is a solid or surface that can be described by its vertices (corner points), edges (line segments connecting certain pairs of vertices), faces (two-dimensional polygons), and that it sometimes can be said to have a particular three-dimensional interior volume. One can distinguish among these different definitions according to whether they describe the polyhedron as a solid, whether they describe it as a surface, or whether they describe it more abstractly based on its incidence geometry.[4]
- A common and somewhat naive definition of a polyhedron is that it is a solid whose boundary can be covered by finitely many planes[5][6] or that it is a solid formed as the union of finitely many convex polyhedra.[7] Natural refinements of this definition require the solid to be bounded, to have a connected interior, and possibly also to have a connected boundary. The faces of such a polyhedron can be defined as the connected components of the parts of the boundary within each of the planes that cover it, and the edges and vertices as the line segments and points where the faces meet. However, the polyhedra defined in this way do not include the self-crossing star polyhedra, whose faces may not form simple polygons, and some of whose edges may belong to more than two faces.[8]
- Definitions based on the idea of a bounding surface rather than a solid are also common.[9] For instance, O'Rourke (1993) defines a polyhedron as a union of convex polygons (its faces), arranged in space so that the intersection of any two polygons is a shared vertex or edge or the empty set and so that their union is a manifold.[10] If a planar part of such a surface is not itself a convex polygon, O'Rourke requires it to be subdivided into smaller convex polygons, with flat dihedral angles between them. Somewhat more generally, Grünbaum defines an acoptic polyhedron to be a collection of simple polygons that form an embedded manifold, with each vertex incident to at least three edges and each two faces intersecting only in shared vertices and edges of each.[11] Cromwell's Polyhedra gives a similar definition but without the restriction of at least three edges per vertex. Again, this type of definition does not encompass the self-crossing polyhedra.[9] Similar notions form the basis of topological definitions of polyhedra, as subdivisions of a topological manifold into topological disks (the faces) whose pairwise intersections are required to be points (vertices), topological arcs (edges), or the empty set. However, there exist topological polyhedra (even with all faces triangles) that cannot be realized as acoptic polyhedra.[12]
- One modern approach is based on the theory of abstract polyhedra. These can be defined as partially ordered sets whose elements are the vertices, edges, and faces of a polyhedron. A vertex or edge element is less than an edge or face element (in this partial order) when the vertex or edge is part of the edge or face. Additionally, one may include a special bottom element of this partial order (representing the empty set) and a top element representing the whole polyhedron. If the sections of the partial order between elements three levels apart (that is, between each face and the bottom element, and between the top element and each vertex) have the same structure as the abstract representation of a polygon, then these partially ordered sets carry exactly the same information as a topological polyhedron.[citation needed] However, these requirements are often relaxed, to instead require only that sections between elements two levels apart have the same structure as the abstract representation of a line segment.[13] (This means that each edge contains two vertices and belongs to two faces, and that each vertex on a face belongs to two edges of that face.) Geometric polyhedra, defined in other ways, can be described abstractly in this way, but it is also possible to use abstract polyhedra as the basis of a definition of geometric polyhedra. A realization of an abstract polyhedron is generally taken to be a mapping from the vertices of the abstract polyhedron to geometric points, such that the points of each face are coplanar. A geometric polyhedron can then be defined as a realization of an abstract polyhedron.[14] Realizations that omit the requirement of face planarity, that impose additional requirements of symmetry, or that map the vertices to higher dimensional spaces have also been considered.[13] Unlike the solid-based and surface-based definitions, this works perfectly well for star polyhedra. However, without additional restrictions, this definition allows degenerate or unfaithful polyhedra (for instance, by mapping all vertices to a single point) and the question of how to constrain realizations to avoid these degeneracies has not been settled.
In all of these definitions, a polyhedron is typically understood as a three-dimensional example of the more general polytope in any number of dimensions. For example, a polygon has a two-dimensional body and no faces, while a 4-polytope has a four-dimensional body and an additional set of three-dimensional "cells". However, some of the literature on higher-dimensional geometry uses the term "polyhedron" to mean something else: not a three-dimensional polytope, but a shape that is different from a polytope in some way. For instance, some sources define a convex polyhedron to be the intersection of finitely many half-spaces, and a polytope to be a bounded polyhedron.[15][16] The remainder of this article considers only three-dimensional polyhedra.
General characteristics
[edit]Number of faces
[edit]Polyhedra may be classified and are often named according to the number of faces. The naming system is based on Classical Greek, and combines a prefix counting the faces with the suffix "hedron", meaning "base" or "seat" and referring to the faces. For example a tetrahedron is a polyhedron with four faces, a pentahedron is a polyhedron with five faces, a hexahedron is a polyhedron with six faces, etc.[17] For a complete list of the Greek numeral prefixes see Numeral prefix § Table of number prefixes in English, in the column for Greek cardinal numbers. The names of tetrahedra, hexahedra, octahedra (eight-sided polyhedra), dodecahedra (twelve-sided polyhedra), and icosahedra (twenty-sided polyhedra) are sometimes used without additional qualification to refer to the Platonic solids, and sometimes used to refer more generally to polyhedra with the given number of sides without any assumption of symmetry.[18]
Topological classification
[edit]Some polyhedra have two distinct sides to their surface. For example, the inside and outside of a convex polyhedron paper model can each be given a different colour (although the inside colour will be hidden from view). These polyhedra are orientable. The same is true for non-convex polyhedra without self-crossings. Some non-convex self-crossing polyhedra can be coloured in the same way but have regions turned "inside out" so that both colours appear on the outside in different places; these are still considered to be orientable. However, for some other self-crossing polyhedra with simple-polygon faces, such as the tetrahemihexahedron, it is not possible to colour the two sides of each face with two different colours so that adjacent faces have consistent colours. In this case the polyhedron is said to be non-orientable. For polyhedra with self-crossing faces, it may not be clear what it means for adjacent faces to be consistently coloured, but for these polyhedra it is still possible to determine whether it is orientable or non-orientable by considering a topological cell complex with the same incidences between its vertices, edges, and faces.[19]
A more subtle distinction between polyhedron surfaces is given by their Euler characteristic, which combines the numbers of vertices , edges , and faces of a polyhedron into a single number defined by the formula
The same formula is also used for the Euler characteristic of other kinds of topological surfaces. It is an invariant of the surface, meaning that when a single surface is subdivided into vertices, edges, and faces in more than one way, the Euler characteristic will be the same for these subdivisions. For a convex polyhedron, or more generally any simply connected polyhedron with the surface of a topological sphere, it always equals 2. For more complicated shapes, the Euler characteristic relates to the number of toroidal holes, handles or cross-caps in the surface and will be less than 2.[20] All polyhedra with odd-numbered Euler characteristics are non-orientable. A given figure with even Euler characteristic may or may not be orientable. For example, the one-holed toroid and the Klein bottle both have , with the first being orientable and the other not.[19]
For many (but not all) ways of defining polyhedra, the surface of the polyhedron is required to be a manifold. This means that every edge is part of the boundary of exactly two faces (disallowing shapes like the union of two cubes that meet only along a shared edge) and that every vertex is incident to a single alternating cycle of edges and faces (disallowing shapes like the union of two cubes sharing only a single vertex). For polyhedra defined in these ways, the classification of manifolds implies that the topological type of the surface is completely determined by the combination of its Euler characteristic and orientability. For example, every polyhedron whose surface is an orientable manifold and whose Euler characteristic is 2 must be a topological sphere.[19]
A toroidal polyhedron is a polyhedron whose Euler characteristic is less than or equal to 0, or equivalently whose genus is 1 or greater. Topologically, the surfaces of such polyhedra are torus surfaces having one or more holes through the middle.[21] A notable example is the Szilassi polyhedron, which geometrically realizes the Heawood map.
Duality
[edit]For every convex polyhedron, there exists a dual polyhedron having
- faces in place of the original's vertices and vice versa, and
- the same number of edges.
The dual of a convex polyhedron can be obtained by the process of polar reciprocation.[22] Dual polyhedra exist in pairs, and the dual of a dual is just the original polyhedron again. Some polyhedra are self-dual, meaning that the dual of the polyhedron is congruent to the original polyhedron.[23]
Abstract polyhedra also have duals, obtained by reversing the partial order defining the polyhedron to obtain its dual or opposite order.[14] These have the same Euler characteristic and orientability as the initial polyhedron. However, this form of duality does not describe the shape of a dual polyhedron, but only its combinatorial structure. For some definitions of non-convex geometric polyhedra, there exist polyhedra whose abstract duals cannot be realized as geometric polyhedra under the same definition.[11]
Vertex figures
[edit]For every vertex one can define a vertex figure, which describes the local structure of the polyhedron around the vertex. Precise definitions vary, but a vertex figure can be thought of as the polygon exposed where a slice through the polyhedron cuts off a vertex.[9] For the Platonic solids and other highly-symmetric polyhedra, this slice may be chosen to pass through the midpoints of each edge incident to the vertex,[24] but other polyhedra may not have a plane through these points. For convex polyhedra, and more generally for polyhedra whose vertices are in convex position, this slice can be chosen as any plane separating the vertex from the other vertices.[25] When the polyhedron has a center of symmetry, it is standard to choose this plane to be perpendicular to the line through the given vertex and the center;[26] with this choice, the shape of the vertex figure is determined up to scaling. When the vertices of a polyhedron are not in convex position, there will not always be a plane separating each vertex from the rest. In this case, it is common instead to slice the polyhedron by a small sphere centered at the vertex.[27] Again, this produces a shape for the vertex figure that is invariant up to scaling. All of these choices lead to vertex figures with the same combinatorial structure, for the polyhedra to which they can be applied, but they may give them different geometric shapes.
Surface area and lines inside polyhedra
[edit]The surface area of a polyhedron is the sum of the areas of its faces, for definitions of polyhedra for which the area of a face is well-defined. The geodesic distance between any two points on the surface of a polyhedron measures the length of the shortest curve that connects the two points, remaining within the surface. By Alexandrov's uniqueness theorem, every convex polyhedron is uniquely determined by the metric space of geodesic distances on its surface. However, non-convex polyhedra can have the same surface distances as each other, or the same as certain convex polyhedra.[28]
When a line segment connect two vertices that are not in the same face, it forms a diagonal line of the polyhedron.[29] Not all polyhedra have diagonal lines, as in the family of pyramids.[citation needed] The Schönhardt polyhedron has three diagonal lines, all of which lie entirely outside of it, and the Császár polyhedron has no diagonal lines (rather, every pair of vertices is connected by an edge).[30]
Volume
[edit]Polyhedral solids have an associated quantity called volume that measures how much space they occupy. Simple families of solids may have simple formulas for their volumes; for example, the volumes of pyramids, prisms, and parallelepipeds can easily be expressed in terms of their edge lengths or other coordinates. (See Volume § Volume formulas for a list that includes many of these formulas.)
Volumes of more complicated polyhedra may not have simple formulas. The volumes of such polyhedra may be computed by subdividing the polyhedron into smaller pieces (for example, by triangulation). For example, the volume of a Platonic solid can be computed by dividing it into congruent pyramids, with each pyramid having a face of the polyhedron as its base and the centre of the polyhedron as its apex.
In general, it can be derived from the divergence theorem that the volume of a polyhedral solid is given by where the sum is over faces of the polyhedron, is an arbitrary point on face , is the unit vector perpendicular to pointing outside the solid, and the multiplication dot is the dot product.[31] In higher dimensions, volume computation may be challenging, in part because of the difficulty of listing the faces of a convex polyhedron specified only by its vertices, and there exist specialized algorithms to determine the volume in these cases.[32]
Dehn invariant
[edit]In two dimensions, the Bolyai–Gerwien theorem asserts that any polygon may be transformed into any other polygon of the same area by cutting it up into finitely many polygonal pieces and rearranging them. The analogous question for polyhedra was the subject of Hilbert's third problem. Max Dehn solved this problem by showing that, unlike in the 2-D case, there exist polyhedra of the same volume that cannot be cut into smaller polyhedra and reassembled into each other. To prove this Dehn discovered another value associated with a polyhedron, the Dehn invariant, such that two polyhedra can only be dissected into each other when they have the same volume and the same Dehn invariant. It was later proven by Sydler that this is the only obstacle to dissection: every two Euclidean polyhedra with the same volumes and Dehn invariants can be cut up and reassembled into each other.[33] The Dehn invariant is not a number, but a vector in an infinite-dimensional vector space, determined from the lengths and dihedral angles of a polyhedron's edges.[34]
Another of Hilbert's problems, Hilbert's eighteenth problem, concerns (among other things) polyhedra that tile space. Every such polyhedron must have Dehn invariant zero.[35] The Dehn invariant has also been connected to flexible polyhedra by the strong bellows theorem, which states that the Dehn invariant of any flexible polyhedron remains invariant as it flexes.[36]