1979, núm 1http://hdl.handle.net/2099/4982018-12-14T17:30:28Z2018-12-14T17:30:28ZAcknowledgementshttp://hdl.handle.net/2099/6042017-02-28T14:35:10Z2005-11-08T17:23:03ZAcknowledgements
2005-11-08T17:23:03ZNotes to Contributorshttp://hdl.handle.net/2099/6032017-02-28T14:38:00Z2005-11-08T17:22:51ZNotes to Contributors
2005-11-08T17:22:51ZMembers of the research grouphttp://hdl.handle.net/2099/6022017-02-28T14:35:15Z2005-11-08T17:22:39ZMembers of the research group
2005-11-08T17:22:39ZInstitutionals Contactshttp://hdl.handle.net/2099/6012017-02-28T14:38:06Z2005-11-08T17:22:16ZInstitutionals Contacts
2005-11-08T17:22:16ZSpecial Session on Rigidity in SyracuseAmerican Mathematical Societyhttp://hdl.handle.net/2099/5302017-02-28T14:38:06Z2005-11-04T12:41:19ZSpecial Session on Rigidity in Syracuse
American Mathematical Society
2005-11-04T12:41:19ZAmerican Mathematical SocietyPoly-KitBaracs, Janoshttp://hdl.handle.net/2099/5292017-02-28T14:35:28Z2005-11-04T12:23:53ZPoly-Kit
Baracs, Janos
2005-11-04T12:23:53ZBaracs, JanosJuxtapositionsBaracs, Janoshttp://hdl.handle.net/2099/5282017-02-28T14:35:30Z2005-11-04T12:23:28ZJuxtapositions
Baracs, Janos
The paper begins with a short historical review of juxtapositions and some arguments which link morphological design in architecture to spacefillings. Three new methods for generating juxtapositions are then described in some detail: the “cube splittings”, the “compound arrangements”, and the “concave parallelohedra”.
2005-11-04T12:23:28ZBaracs, JanosThe paper begins with a short historical review of juxtapositions and some arguments which link morphological design in architecture to spacefillings. Three new methods for generating juxtapositions are then described in some detail: the “cube splittings”, the “compound arrangements”, and the “concave parallelohedra”.Realizability of PolyhedraWhiteley, Walterhttp://hdl.handle.net/2099/5272017-02-28T14:35:31Z2005-11-04T12:23:00ZRealizability of Polyhedra
Whiteley, Walter
We address ourselves to three types of combinatorial and projective problems, all of which
concern the patterns of faces, edges and vertices of polyhedra. These patterns, as combinatorial structures, we call combinatorial oriented polyhedra. Which patterns can be realized in space with plane faces, bent along every edge, and how can these patterns be generated topologlcally? Which polyhedra are constructed in space by a series of single or double truncations on the smallest polyhedron of the type (for example from the tetrahedron for spherical polyhedra)? Which plane line drawings portraying the edge graph of a combinatorial polyhedron are actually the projection of the edges of a plane-faced polyhedron in space? Wherever possible known results and specific conjectures are given.
2005-11-04T12:23:00ZWhiteley, WalterWe address ourselves to three types of combinatorial and projective problems, all of which
concern the patterns of faces, edges and vertices of polyhedra. These patterns, as combinatorial structures, we call combinatorial oriented polyhedra. Which patterns can be realized in space with plane faces, bent along every edge, and how can these patterns be generated topologlcally? Which polyhedra are constructed in space by a series of single or double truncations on the smallest polyhedron of the type (for example from the tetrahedron for spherical polyhedra)? Which plane line drawings portraying the edge graph of a combinatorial polyhedron are actually the projection of the edges of a plane-faced polyhedron in space? Wherever possible known results and specific conjectures are given.Résumés en français de ces articleshttp://hdl.handle.net/2099/5262017-02-28T14:35:18Z2005-11-04T12:22:23ZRésumés en français de ces articles
2005-11-04T12:22:23ZStructural RigidityCrapo, Henryhttp://hdl.handle.net/2099/5212017-02-28T14:38:02Z2005-11-03T19:37:37ZStructural Rigidity
Crapo, Henry
This article summarizes the presently available general theory of rigidity of 3-dimensional structures. We explain how a structure, for instance a bar and joint structure, can fail to be rigid for two quite different types of reasons. First, it may not have enough bars connecting certain sets of nodes. That is, it may faij for topologlcrl reasons. Secondly, although it may “count” correctly, it may still fail to be rigid if it is set up with some special relative positions of its nodes and bars; This second type of failure is a question not of topology but of projectbe geometry.
2005-11-03T19:37:37ZCrapo, HenryThis article summarizes the presently available general theory of rigidity of 3-dimensional structures. We explain how a structure, for instance a bar and joint structure, can fail to be rigid for two quite different types of reasons. First, it may not have enough bars connecting certain sets of nodes. That is, it may faij for topologlcrl reasons. Secondly, although it may “count” correctly, it may still fail to be rigid if it is set up with some special relative positions of its nodes and bars; This second type of failure is a question not of topology but of projectbe geometry.