Hi all,
In my copious free time I often enjoy wandering around the OEIS learning about various sequences. There's one set that has caught my eye recently, but I'm having trouble understanding it: the concept of a "generalized polygon"  the "generalized pentagonal numbers", the "generalized heptagonal numbers", etc.
I haven't managed to find a primer on the subject for a mathenthusiastic layman. Anybody here know of one, or, barring that, can be bothered to provide it themselves?
Thanks!
"Generalized" polygons?
Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates
Re: "Generalized" polygons?
It's probably better to parse it as "generalized (pentagonal number)" rather than "(generalized pentagon)al number". They seem to be created by taking the formula for pentagonal numbers, and plugging in negative numbers for the length of a side.
 Xanthir
 My HERO!!!
 Posts: 5366
 Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 12:49 am UTC
 Location: The Googleplex
 Contact:
Re: "Generalized" polygons?
Yup, that's all this is  a generalization of the polygonal number sequences to allow for 0 and negative sides.
(defun fibs (n &optional (a 1) (b 1)) (take n (unfold '+ a b)))

 Posts: 22
 Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:17 am UTC
Re: "Generalized" polygons?
Interesting! Is there any physical meaning to, or representation of, a polygon with negative sides?
Re: "Generalized" polygons?
Hmm.
A square with negative sides would nonetheless have a positive area.
Meaningless or mindblowing..? You decide...
A square with negative sides would nonetheless have a positive area.
Meaningless or mindblowing..? You decide...
Re: "Generalized" polygons?
I'd think a polygon with negativelength sides would be identical to the same polygon with positivelength sides, rotated 180 degrees.
And perhaps a polygon with imaginarylength sides would be identical to the same polygon with reallength sides, rotated 90 degrees.
And perhaps a polygon with imaginarylength sides would be identical to the same polygon with reallength sides, rotated 90 degrees.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy)  The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy)  The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

 Posts: 22
 Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:17 am UTC
Re: "Generalized" polygons?
Can't be a simple rotation; if it were, there wouldn't be a separate term in the sequence for it.
Re: "Generalized" polygons?
Possibly the generalized sequence no longer corresponds to the geometry that the nongeneralized sequence was based on? I was commenting on the geometry, not the number sequence derived from it.
This seems to shed some light on the meaning of the negativeindexed members of the sequence, though.
This seems to shed some light on the meaning of the negativeindexed members of the sequence, though.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy)  The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy)  The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)
 doogly
 Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
 Posts: 5493
 Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
 Location: Lexington, MA
 Contact:
Re: "Generalized" polygons?
There is a really neat history of Euler's work on this:
https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0510054
Euler was a beast.
https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0510054
Euler was a beast.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.
Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.
Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?
 Soupspoon
 You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
 Posts: 3877
 Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
 Location: 531
Re: "Generalized" polygons?
The sequence of polygonal numbers isn't (at least as I see it) as simple as a number n for f(x) where f(x)=f(x). It relies upon the union of f(x1) and the (unfilled) polygon g(x) that is the perimeter extant of f(x), and the special case of f(0) being 1, so that for squares length 1 sides is 4x1 minus L0's 1 (added to L1's 1), length 2 is 4x2 minus the three coincident L2 spots (added to L2's total of four), length 3 is 125(+9), etc.
(Noting that I'm using length of side x that is actually one less than the real number used, which is "fenceposts, not fencebars", just to save fuss in this segment.)
The transition up the negatives (towards zero) is therefore different in principle from backtracking down the positives (towards zero) and just reversing the sign of both. Indeed (even after readjusting for my adjustby1 'error') it can be seen that a positive output number comes out of the negative square. The simpler, in this case, y=x² analogue to the more complicated sum of 1,3,5,7,9,… makes it obvious (much as adding n,n+2,n+4 works on the flipside, and …1,+1,… nicely bridges across the central pillar of zero), but for the less trivial y=NPolygonOf(N,x) for N≠4 it'd be a funny Union¹ of old fullpolygon and new edgepolygon to make the set deplete.
What I'd find interesting is the efficacy of negative sides (or zero, if not 1 or 2 also), then fractional and eventually complex+ numbers in either/both the N and x positions (for N=4, 'otherworldly' values of x can be compared against the existing known treatment of 'just squaring them', as a first test for reality). Assuming we aren't going to disallow them (as an incalculable singularity/undefined value) or lazily neuter them into just counting numbers (as per the negatives in the lazy way of handling them) into accepted order.
But minds more learned than mine² have no doubt applied themselves to these issues, even if I'd spent more than just the half an hour on my own analysis/reinventingthewheel!
¹ Probably just means that one should not think of it in terms of sets, but I'm not entirely convinced we should just use x in the equation and disavow the handling of negative numbers in the series by glossing over them.
² I think I would be no false modesty to count Euler amongst that number.
(Noting that I'm using length of side x that is actually one less than the real number used, which is "fenceposts, not fencebars", just to save fuss in this segment.)
The transition up the negatives (towards zero) is therefore different in principle from backtracking down the positives (towards zero) and just reversing the sign of both. Indeed (even after readjusting for my adjustby1 'error') it can be seen that a positive output number comes out of the negative square. The simpler, in this case, y=x² analogue to the more complicated sum of 1,3,5,7,9,… makes it obvious (much as adding n,n+2,n+4 works on the flipside, and …1,+1,… nicely bridges across the central pillar of zero), but for the less trivial y=NPolygonOf(N,x) for N≠4 it'd be a funny Union¹ of old fullpolygon and new edgepolygon to make the set deplete.
What I'd find interesting is the efficacy of negative sides (or zero, if not 1 or 2 also), then fractional and eventually complex+ numbers in either/both the N and x positions (for N=4, 'otherworldly' values of x can be compared against the existing known treatment of 'just squaring them', as a first test for reality). Assuming we aren't going to disallow them (as an incalculable singularity/undefined value) or lazily neuter them into just counting numbers (as per the negatives in the lazy way of handling them) into accepted order.
But minds more learned than mine² have no doubt applied themselves to these issues, even if I'd spent more than just the half an hour on my own analysis/reinventingthewheel!
¹ Probably just means that one should not think of it in terms of sets, but I'm not entirely convinced we should just use x in the equation and disavow the handling of negative numbers in the series by glossing over them.
² I think I would be no false modesty to count Euler amongst that number.
 Eebster the Great
 Posts: 3202
 Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
 Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Re: "Generalized" polygons?
They describe exactly how the generalization works. You just take the general formula for ngonal numbers and plug in negative values. For instance, the very first link is called "Generalized pentagonal numbers: m*(3*m1)/2, m=0, +1, +2, +3, .... ."
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests