How does one generalize the dual of a tiling by regular polygons to other tilings?
$begingroup$
This question is motivated by some work in curriculum design for outreach math. Normal tilings of the Euclidean plane are a popular topic since people of all ages can play with it, but on the other hand the topic can be quite subtle and complicated. This sets up a situation where common abuse of terminology sometimes snowballs into broader confusion. I'm trying to remedy that and, at least for a start, improve my own understanding of the technical details so I can explain it to educators. This boils down (for now) to two questions, the more interesting one being in the title. I start with the less interested one though because it sets up notation.
The term "Tessellation"
My research has been in topology, where I learned a very general definition of this term. In particular, given a topological space $mathcal{X}$,
a tessellation $mathcal{T}$
of $mathcal{X}$
is a countable set ${T_i}_{iin I}$ ($Isubseteqmathbb{N}$)
of closed subsets $T_isubseteqmathcal{X}$
such that $bigcup_{iin I}T_i=mathcal{X}$,
and $forall ineq j$ we have $oversetcirc{T_i}capoversetcirc{T_j}=emptyset$.
And we call the tessellation a tiling if $mathcal{X}$ is a surface, and often tag on some other assumptions like uniform boundedness and tiles being bounded by closed curves.
Online, one can easily find a tessellation "defined" as a "tiling of the plane" or the like, and it's usually not worth the work in clearing up all the abuses of terminology in such statements. My gut tells me that people just like the more math-y sounding (and less bathroom-reminiscent) word,
and it bugs me a little because I want people to be willing to think about more advanced stuff if they want to throw around bigger words.
However, trying to choose my battles wisely, I wonder if there's an easier way out without sacrificing consistency.
Is there an area of math with a respectable set of references where this usage is consistent?
Illegal duals
Now let's restrict to the case where $mathcal{X}$ is the Euclidean plane. If all my $T_i$ are regular polygons, then $mathcal{T}$ has a dual tiling, $mathcal{T}^*$, formed by putting a straight line segment connecting the centers of every pair of adjacent (edge-sharing) tiles, then erasing the original edges. We notice that $mathcal{T}^{**}=mathcal{T}$.
But folks want to talk about "duals" of tilings not consisting of regular polygons, which gets vague because it's unclear what the center is, especially when the tiles are concave. Also, you have scenarios where $mathcal{T}^{**}neqmathcal{T}$, which does not seem right for something we're going to call a "dual."
On the other hand, one does gain insight from doing something like the dual construction on other shapes. By way of motivation, check out what happens if $mathcal{T}$ is Escher's famous lizard tiling, then I form a "$mathcal{T}^*$"
where I pick an eyeball to use as my center,
and follow that eyeball consistent with the symmetry.
This choice is to (1) show what happens if my point is clearly not in the geometric center, and (2) make it easy to find on every lizard.
And look what happens when I form "$mathcal{T}^{**}$"
using the geometric centers of the new polygons, which just so happen to be vertices (ie, points of valence $>2$) of the original Escher tilings (doesn't seem like a coincidence).
Does that monohedral pattern with quadrilaterals tell me things about the symmetry of the lizard pattern? You bet. And if I don't mind using where those eyeballs were as my "centers" again, I also get "$mathcal{T}^{***}"="mathcal{T}^{*}$".
But did I take the dual? What did I take? Is there a more generalized theory of this and, if so, what are the rules?
duality-theorems tiling tessellations
asked Nov 26 '18 at 21:32
j0equ1nnj0equ1nn
1,542923
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This question is motivated by some work in curriculum design for outreach math. Normal tilings of the Euclidean plane are a popular topic since people of all ages can play with it, but on the other hand the topic can be quite subtle and complicated. This sets up a situation where common abuse of terminology sometimes snowballs into broader confusion. I'm trying to remedy that and, at least for a start, improve my own understanding of the technical details so I can explain it to educators. This boils down (for now) to two questions, the more interesting one being in the title. I start with the less interested one though because it sets up notation.
The term "Tessellation"
My research has been in topology, where I learned a very general definition of this term. In particular, given a topological space $mathcal{X}$,
a tessellation $mathcal{T}$
of $mathcal{X}$
is a countable set ${T_i}_{iin I}$ ($Isubseteqmathbb{N}$)
of closed subsets $T_isubseteqmathcal{X}$
such that $bigcup_{iin I}T_i=mathcal{X}$,
and $forall ineq j$ we have $oversetcirc{T_i}capoversetcirc{T_j}=emptyset$.
And we call the tessellation a tiling if $mathcal{X}$ is a surface, and often tag on some other assumptions like uniform boundedness and tiles being bounded by closed curves.
Online, one can easily find a tessellation "defined" as a "tiling of the plane" or the like, and it's usually not worth the work in clearing up all the abuses of terminology in such statements. My gut tells me that people just like the more math-y sounding (and less bathroom-reminiscent) word,
and it bugs me a little because I want people to be willing to think about more advanced stuff if they want to throw around bigger words.
However, trying to choose my battles wisely, I wonder if there's an easier way out without sacrificing consistency.
Is there an area of math with a respectable set of references where this usage is consistent?
Illegal duals
Now let's restrict to the case where $mathcal{X}$ is the Euclidean plane. If all my $T_i$ are regular polygons, then $mathcal{T}$ has a dual tiling, $mathcal{T}^*$, formed by putting a straight line segment connecting the centers of every pair of adjacent (edge-sharing) tiles, then erasing the original edges. We notice that $mathcal{T}^{**}=mathcal{T}$.
But folks want to talk about "duals" of tilings not consisting of regular polygons, which gets vague because it's unclear what the center is, especially when the tiles are concave. Also, you have scenarios where $mathcal{T}^{**}neqmathcal{T}$, which does not seem right for something we're going to call a "dual."
On the other hand, one does gain insight from doing something like the dual construction on other shapes. By way of motivation, check out what happens if $mathcal{T}$ is Escher's famous lizard tiling, then I form a "$mathcal{T}^*$"
where I pick an eyeball to use as my center,
and follow that eyeball consistent with the symmetry.
This choice is to (1) show what happens if my point is clearly not in the geometric center, and (2) make it easy to find on every lizard.
And look what happens when I form "$mathcal{T}^{**}$"
using the geometric centers of the new polygons, which just so happen to be vertices (ie, points of valence $>2$) of the original Escher tilings (doesn't seem like a coincidence).
Does that monohedral pattern with quadrilaterals tell me things about the symmetry of the lizard pattern? You bet. And if I don't mind using where those eyeballs were as my "centers" again, I also get "$mathcal{T}^{***}"="mathcal{T}^{*}$".
But did I take the dual? What did I take? Is there a more generalized theory of this and, if so, what are the rules?
duality-theorems tiling tessellations
asked Nov 26 '18 at 21:32
j0equ1nnj0equ1nn
1,542923
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Interesting very general question. I assume you've googled dual plane tiling (and similar searches) and followed some links.
$endgroup$
– Ethan Bolker
Nov 27 '18 at 18:46
$begingroup$
@EthanBolker Yes, I've been looking around a bunch for this answer. I find that most sources either require regular polygons or assume that without realizing it. I'm not seeing anything rigorous about how to deal with other cases, but would bet that it's out there somewhere.
$endgroup$
– j0equ1nn
Nov 27 '18 at 20:40
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This question is motivated by some work in curriculum design for outreach math. Normal tilings of the Euclidean plane are a popular topic since people of all ages can play with it, but on the other hand the topic can be quite subtle and complicated. This sets up a situation where common abuse of terminology sometimes snowballs into broader confusion. I'm trying to remedy that and, at least for a start, improve my own understanding of the technical details so I can explain it to educators. This boils down (for now) to two questions, the more interesting one being in the title. I start with the less interested one though because it sets up notation.
The term "Tessellation"
My research has been in topology, where I learned a very general definition of this term. In particular, given a topological space $mathcal{X}$,
a tessellation $mathcal{T}$
of $mathcal{X}$
is a countable set ${T_i}_{iin I}$ ($Isubseteqmathbb{N}$)
of closed subsets $T_isubseteqmathcal{X}$
such that $bigcup_{iin I}T_i=mathcal{X}$,
and $forall ineq j$ we have $oversetcirc{T_i}capoversetcirc{T_j}=emptyset$.
And we call the tessellation a tiling if $mathcal{X}$ is a surface, and often tag on some other assumptions like uniform boundedness and tiles being bounded by closed curves.
Online, one can easily find a tessellation "defined" as a "tiling of the plane" or the like, and it's usually not worth the work in clearing up all the abuses of terminology in such statements. My gut tells me that people just like the more math-y sounding (and less bathroom-reminiscent) word,
and it bugs me a little because I want people to be willing to think about more advanced stuff if they want to throw around bigger words.
However, trying to choose my battles wisely, I wonder if there's an easier way out without sacrificing consistency.
Is there an area of math with a respectable set of references where this usage is consistent?
Illegal duals
Now let's restrict to the case where $mathcal{X}$ is the Euclidean plane. If all my $T_i$ are regular polygons, then $mathcal{T}$ has a dual tiling, $mathcal{T}^*$, formed by putting a straight line segment connecting the centers of every pair of adjacent (edge-sharing) tiles, then erasing the original edges. We notice that $mathcal{T}^{**}=mathcal{T}$.
But folks want to talk about "duals" of tilings not consisting of regular polygons, which gets vague because it's unclear what the center is, especially when the tiles are concave. Also, you have scenarios where $mathcal{T}^{**}neqmathcal{T}$, which does not seem right for something we're going to call a "dual."
On the other hand, one does gain insight from doing something like the dual construction on other shapes. By way of motivation, check out what happens if $mathcal{T}$ is Escher's famous lizard tiling, then I form a "$mathcal{T}^*$"
where I pick an eyeball to use as my center,
and follow that eyeball consistent with the symmetry.
This choice is to (1) show what happens if my point is clearly not in the geometric center, and (2) make it easy to find on every lizard.
And look what happens when I form "$mathcal{T}^{**}$"
using the geometric centers of the new polygons, which just so happen to be vertices (ie, points of valence $>2$) of the original Escher tilings (doesn't seem like a coincidence).
Does that monohedral pattern with quadrilaterals tell me things about the symmetry of the lizard pattern? You bet. And if I don't mind using where those eyeballs were as my "centers" again, I also get "$mathcal{T}^{***}"="mathcal{T}^{*}$".
But did I take the dual? What did I take? Is there a more generalized theory of this and, if so, what are the rules?
duality-theorems tiling tessellations
asked Nov 26 '18 at 21:32
j0equ1nnj0equ1nn
1,542923
$endgroup$
This question is motivated by some work in curriculum design for outreach math. Normal tilings of the Euclidean plane are a popular topic since people of all ages can play with it, but on the other hand the topic can be quite subtle and complicated. This sets up a situation where common abuse of terminology sometimes snowballs into broader confusion. I'm trying to remedy that and, at least for a start, improve my own understanding of the technical details so I can explain it to educators. This boils down (for now) to two questions, the more interesting one being in the title. I start with the less interested one though because it sets up notation.
The term "Tessellation"
My research has been in topology, where I learned a very general definition of this term. In particular, given a topological space $mathcal{X}$,
a tessellation $mathcal{T}$
of $mathcal{X}$
is a countable set ${T_i}_{iin I}$ ($Isubseteqmathbb{N}$)
of closed subsets $T_isubseteqmathcal{X}$
such that $bigcup_{iin I}T_i=mathcal{X}$,
and $forall ineq j$ we have $oversetcirc{T_i}capoversetcirc{T_j}=emptyset$.
And we call the tessellation a tiling if $mathcal{X}$ is a surface, and often tag on some other assumptions like uniform boundedness and tiles being bounded by closed curves.
Online, one can easily find a tessellation "defined" as a "tiling of the plane" or the like, and it's usually not worth the work in clearing up all the abuses of terminology in such statements. My gut tells me that people just like the more math-y sounding (and less bathroom-reminiscent) word,
and it bugs me a little because I want people to be willing to think about more advanced stuff if they want to throw around bigger words.
However, trying to choose my battles wisely, I wonder if there's an easier way out without sacrificing consistency.
Is there an area of math with a respectable set of references where this usage is consistent?
Illegal duals
Now let's restrict to the case where $mathcal{X}$ is the Euclidean plane. If all my $T_i$ are regular polygons, then $mathcal{T}$ has a dual tiling, $mathcal{T}^*$, formed by putting a straight line segment connecting the centers of every pair of adjacent (edge-sharing) tiles, then erasing the original edges. We notice that $mathcal{T}^{**}=mathcal{T}$.
But folks want to talk about "duals" of tilings not consisting of regular polygons, which gets vague because it's unclear what the center is, especially when the tiles are concave. Also, you have scenarios where $mathcal{T}^{**}neqmathcal{T}$, which does not seem right for something we're going to call a "dual."
On the other hand, one does gain insight from doing something like the dual construction on other shapes. By way of motivation, check out what happens if $mathcal{T}$ is Escher's famous lizard tiling, then I form a "$mathcal{T}^*$"
where I pick an eyeball to use as my center,
and follow that eyeball consistent with the symmetry.
This choice is to (1) show what happens if my point is clearly not in the geometric center, and (2) make it easy to find on every lizard.
And look what happens when I form "$mathcal{T}^{**}$"
using the geometric centers of the new polygons, which just so happen to be vertices (ie, points of valence $>2$) of the original Escher tilings (doesn't seem like a coincidence).
Does that monohedral pattern with quadrilaterals tell me things about the symmetry of the lizard pattern? You bet. And if I don't mind using where those eyeballs were as my "centers" again, I also get "$mathcal{T}^{***}"="mathcal{T}^{*}$".
But did I take the dual? What did I take? Is there a more generalized theory of this and, if so, what are the rules?
duality-theorems tiling tessellations
duality-theorems tiling tessellations
asked Nov 26 '18 at 21:32
j0equ1nnj0equ1nn
1,542923
asked Nov 26 '18 at 21:32
j0equ1nnj0equ1nn
1,542923
edited Dec 3 '18 at 2:31
j0equ1nn
asked Nov 26 '18 at 21:32
j0equ1nnj0equ1nn
1,542923
asked Nov 26 '18 at 21:32
j0equ1nnj0equ1nn
1,542923
asked Nov 26 '18 at 21:32
j0equ1nnj0equ1nn
1,542923
1,542923
$begingroup$
Interesting very general question. I assume you've googled dual plane tiling (and similar searches) and followed some links.
$endgroup$
– Ethan Bolker
Nov 27 '18 at 18:46
$begingroup$
@EthanBolker Yes, I've been looking around a bunch for this answer. I find that most sources either require regular polygons or assume that without realizing it. I'm not seeing anything rigorous about how to deal with other cases, but would bet that it's out there somewhere.
$endgroup$
– j0equ1nn
Nov 27 '18 at 20:40
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Interesting very general question. I assume you've googled dual plane tiling (and similar searches) and followed some links.
$endgroup$
– Ethan Bolker
Nov 27 '18 at 18:46
$begingroup$
@EthanBolker Yes, I've been looking around a bunch for this answer. I find that most sources either require regular polygons or assume that without realizing it. I'm not seeing anything rigorous about how to deal with other cases, but would bet that it's out there somewhere.
$endgroup$
– j0equ1nn
Nov 27 '18 at 20:40
$begingroup$
Interesting very general question. I assume you've googled dual plane tiling (and similar searches) and followed some links.
$endgroup$
– Ethan Bolker
Nov 27 '18 at 18:46
$begingroup$
Interesting very general question. I assume you've googled dual plane tiling (and similar searches) and followed some links.
$endgroup$
– Ethan Bolker
Nov 27 '18 at 18:46
$begingroup$
@EthanBolker Yes, I've been looking around a bunch for this answer. I find that most sources either require regular polygons or assume that without realizing it. I'm not seeing anything rigorous about how to deal with other cases, but would bet that it's out there somewhere.
$endgroup$
– j0equ1nn
Nov 27 '18 at 20:40
$begingroup$
@EthanBolker Yes, I've been looking around a bunch for this answer. I find that most sources either require regular polygons or assume that without realizing it. I'm not seeing anything rigorous about how to deal with other cases, but would bet that it's out there somewhere.
$endgroup$
– j0equ1nn
Nov 27 '18 at 20:40
add a comment |
0
active
oldest
votes
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3014957%2fhow-does-one-generalize-the-dual-of-a-tiling-by-regular-polygons-to-other-tiling%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
0
active
oldest
votes
0
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3014957%2fhow-does-one-generalize-the-dual-of-a-tiling-by-regular-polygons-to-other-tiling%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
Interesting very general question. I assume you've googled dual plane tiling (and similar searches) and followed some links.
$endgroup$
– Ethan Bolker
Nov 27 '18 at 18:46
$begingroup$
@EthanBolker Yes, I've been looking around a bunch for this answer. I find that most sources either require regular polygons or assume that without realizing it. I'm not seeing anything rigorous about how to deal with other cases, but would bet that it's out there somewhere.
$endgroup$
– j0equ1nn
Nov 27 '18 at 20:40