Posted: Sun 01 Feb, 2009 9:27 am
My opinion?
Assuming of course we're not dealing with five-dimensional objects in a basic Euclidean geometric universe and given the essential premise that all geo-mathematics is based on the hideously limiting notion that one plus one equals two, and not as {Astemeyer} correctly postulates that one and two are in fact the same thing observed from different precepts. The theoretical shape described by {Siddus} must therefore be a poly-dri-doc-deca-wee-hedron-a-hexa-sexa-hedro-adicon-a-di-bi- dolly-he-deca-dodron. Everything else is poppycock.
Assuming of course we're not dealing with five-dimensional objects in a basic Euclidean geometric universe and given the essential premise that all geo-mathematics is based on the hideously limiting notion that one plus one equals two, and not as {Astemeyer} correctly postulates that one and two are in fact the same thing observed from different precepts. The theoretical shape described by {Siddus} must therefore be a poly-dri-doc-deca-wee-hedron-a-hexa-sexa-hedro-adicon-a-di-bi- dolly-he-deca-dodron. Everything else is poppycock.