This naive first take on a definition actually runs into some subtle problems: Consider a square divided into four smaller squares. The large square has the same symmetry group as the smaller ones, but automorphisms of the large square are not automorphisms of the small ones!
-
-
Show this thread
-
Nevertheless, this approach holds out the prospect of an algebraically precise language for discussing aspects of the problem. Consider that in
@literalbanana's poll, the original rectangle has symmetry group Z_2 x Z_2, while the transformed versions are all Z_2.Show this thread -
That is, they all break the structure in the same way: they lose symmetry across the horizontal axis, while keeping it across the vertical axis.
Show this thread -
Why did Alexander believe there was a correct choice among the three? Perhaps as an architect, symmetry across the horizontal axis is less important, since gravity always breaks it. His preferred elaboration resembles an object standing on legs! cc:
@literalbananaShow this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
. Banned in Sweden. SubGenius, Zhuangist, white-hat troll. Defrocked mathematician. Brain problems.