Your picture is surely partly correct, in that any planes may simply be adjusted so that they meet the given sphere and still form a trough outside some tetrahedron. However given a regular tetrahedron, that trough turns out to be the wrong shape to accommodate any sphere! I initially thought I had a rather slick argument supporting (B), but further contemplation has revealed the (inevitable) flaw. So (B) is probably false in general, and a little more spadework is indicated --- customary apologies! WFL On 4/6/16, Allan Wechsler <acwacw@gmail.com> wrote:
Does (B) have a typo? I have a pretty good visualization of a sphere tangent to the inside of two faces and the outside of two others. It hovers just outside the common edge of the two faces it's exteriorly tangent to, and the other two faces cut off the ends of the trough it rests in. I do see that m=3 is impossible for the tetrahedron.
On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Fred Lunnon <fred.lunnon@gmail.com> wrote:
I finally wrote up properly all the stuff I've been doing about inspheres and exspheres of a simplex. Finished. Done & dusted. Off my plate.
But as I sat down again to start writing up P*nc*l*t's perishin' p*r*sm, an obnoxious inspiration intruded. Why shouldn't a simplex in Euclidean space also sport an ` m-fold' exsphere, tangent to m facets on their exterior side, and to n-m+1 on their interior side, where perhaps m > 1 ?
In particular, show
(A) That m = 2 is impossible when n = 2 (for a triangle);
(B) That m = 2 is impossible when n = 3 (for a tetrahedron);
(C) What happens for m = 2 and n = 4 (for a pentatope);
(D) What happens for general 0 <= m <= n+1 ?
Fred Lunnon
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun