Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorTapo
   • CommentTimeDec 30th 2020
   • PermaLink
   Author: Tapo
   Format: TextI was looking at the unit conditions for Trimble's [[tetracategory]] and encountered a problem when fiddling around trying to extend to U51 and U55. I noticed that the whiskered product cell of the pentagonator modification was the only product cell that would add an "interior vertex" and that each unit condition had a single pentagonator in both the positive and negative paths. When extending Trimble's trees to U51 and U55, it seemed to define unit conditions that would lack a pentagonator in the positive and negative paths, resp.

   I was looking at the unit conditions for Trimble's tetracategory and encountered a problem when fiddling around trying to extend to U51 and U55. I noticed that the whiskered product cell of the pentagonator modification was the only product cell that would add an "interior vertex" and that each unit condition had a single pentagonator in both the positive and negative paths. When extending Trimble's trees to U51 and U55, it seemed to define unit conditions that would lack a pentagonator in the positive and negative paths, resp.
2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeDec 30th 2020
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: MarkdownItexI can have a look, but it may be a day or so before I find the time.

   I can have a look, but it may be a day or so before I find the time.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeDec 30th 2020
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: MarkdownItexBefore I really drill down and try to produce $U_{51}$ and $U_{55}$ myself (my experience is that it takes at least a couple of hours to do these things), maybe I could ask: are you seeing behavior that you don't see in the other unit conditions? I'm having a slightly hard time picking up the thread from your description.

   Before I really drill down and try to produce $U_{51}$ and $U_{55}$ myself (my experience is that it takes at least a couple of hours to do these things), maybe I could ask: are you seeing behavior that you don’t see in the other unit conditions? I’m having a slightly hard time picking up the thread from your description.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorTapo
   • CommentTimeDec 30th 2020
   • (edited Dec 30th 2020)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Tapo
   Format: MarkdownItexPrecisely, the other unit conditions contain a single copy of $\Pi$ in both paths of product cell and constraint compositions, which doesn't seem to happen for $U_{51}$ or $U_{55}$. Also, it seemed that all the product cells and constraints take away a vertex, except for $\Pi$ which adds a vertex by creating a pentagon at the top of the cell. For $U_{51}$, the trees produced a positive path (containing $K_{5}$) that has $U_{41}$ where the $\Pi$ "should" be, but the negative path does have a $\Pi$. In regards to diagrams instead of trees, $U_{51}$ seems to have an arrow from I((xy)(yz)) to (xy)(yz) sort of blocking the pentagon from forming. I'm not sure if these missing vertexes could appear from a product cell or constraint that isn't $\Pi$.

   Precisely, the other unit conditions contain a single copy of $\Pi$ in both paths of product cell and constraint compositions, which doesn’t seem to happen for $U_{51}$ or $U_{55}$. Also, it seemed that all the product cells and constraints take away a vertex, except for $\Pi$ which adds a vertex by creating a pentagon at the top of the cell. For $U_{51}$, the trees produced a positive path (containing $K_{5}$) that has $U_{41}$ where the $\Pi$ “should” be, but the negative path does have a $\Pi$. In regards to diagrams instead of trees, $U_{51}$ seems to have an arrow from I((xy)(yz)) to (xy)(yz) sort of blocking the pentagon from forming. I’m not sure if these missing vertexes could appear from a product cell or constraint that isn’t $\Pi$.

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorTapo
   • CommentTimeDec 30th 2020
   • PermaLink
   Author: Tapo
   Format: MarkdownItex$U_{55}$ has a similar problem, except with the negative path missing the $\Pi$.

   $U_{55}$ has a similar problem, except with the negative path missing the $\Pi$.

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeDec 30th 2020
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: MarkdownItexWell, I think there's no help for it but to be able to share actual pictures. I haven't finished writing down $U_{51}$ today, but I hope to get to that. Might you be able to reach me by email? Incidentally, if you've managed to produce these things correctly (by my lights) based on the sparse hints in those notes, then I'm impressed. :-) It happens occasionally that I meet someone who wants to discuss such things in detail, but it's pretty rare. So, thanks for your interest.

   Well, I think there’s no help for it but to be able to share actual pictures. I haven’t finished writing down $U_{51}$ today, but I hope to get to that. Might you be able to reach me by email?

   Incidentally, if you’ve managed to produce these things correctly (by my lights) based on the sparse hints in those notes, then I’m impressed. :-)

   It happens occasionally that I meet someone who wants to discuss such things in detail, but it’s pretty rare. So, thanks for your interest.

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorTapo
   • CommentTimeDec 31st 2020
   • PermaLink
   Author: Tapo
   Format: TextThank you for reaching out as well! Hopefully what I've produced isn't too far off, but I'll go ahead and contact you through email.

   Thank you for reaching out as well!
   
   Hopefully what I've produced isn't too far off, but I'll go ahead and contact you through email.