DOCSLIB.ORG

Honeycomb Subdivision

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Honeycomb Subdivision Honeycomb Subdivision Ergun Akleman¤and Vinod Srinivasan Visualization Sciences Program, Texas A&M University Abstract ² Corner cutting schemes such as Doo-Sabin [8, 3]: af- ter one iteration all vertices 1 become 4-valent and the In this paper, we introduce a new subdivision scheme number of non-4-sided faces remains invariant after which we call honeycomb subdivision. After one iteration the first refinement. of the scheme each vertex becomes exactly 3-valent and ² Vertex insertion schemes such as Catmull-Clark [5]: with consecutive applications regular regions strongly re- after one iteration all faces become 4-sided and the sembles a honeycomb. This scheme can be considered as a number of non-4-valent vertices is constant after the dual for triangle schemes. The major advantage of the new first refinement. scheme is that it creates a natural looking mesh structure. p ² Triangular schemes such as 3-subdivision [10, 11]: 1. Introduction after one iteration all faces become 3-sided and the number of non-6-valent vertices is constant after the first refinement. Although subdivision surfaces were introduced more than 20 years ago by Doo, Sabin, Catmull and Clark[5, 8], Notice that in this list vertex insertion and corner cut- they were ignored by the computer graphics industry until ting schemes are dual, i.e., one of them makes every face they were used in 1998 Academy Award-winning short film 4-sided, the other one makes every vertex 4-valent. There “Geri’s Game” by Pixar [7, 20]. Since then subdivision is currently no dual for triangular schemes. The scheme we surfaces have become increasingly popular in the computer present in this paper provides the missing dual for triangular graphics and modeling industry. This is not a surprise since schemes: subdivision methods solve the fundamental problem of ten- ² Honeycomb schemes: after one iteration all vertices sor product parametric surfaces [12, 13] without sacrificing become 3-valent and the number of non-6-sided faces the speed of shape computation [5, 8, 11, 9, 18, 7]. Unlike is constant after first refinement. tensor product surfaces, with subdivision surfaces, control meshes do not have to have a regular rectangular structure. We call such schemes honeycomb since the resulting Subdivision algorithms can smooth any 2-manifold (or 2- meshes strongly resemble honeycombs, which our dictio- manifold with boundary) mesh [20, 21]. nary defines as (1) A structure of hexagonal, thin-walled Subdivision surfaces assume that users first provide an ir- cells constructed from beeswax by honeybees to hold honey regular 2-manifold control mesh, M0. By applying a set of and larvae, (2) Something resembling this structure in con- subdivision rules, a sequence of finer and finer 2-manifold figuration or pattern. meshes M1; M2;:::; Mn;::: are created. These meshes Figure 1 shows five iterations of our honeycomb scheme. eventually converge to a ”smooth” limit surface M1 [10]. In this example, the control mesh M0 is a dodecahedron, One way to classify subdivision schemes is based on M1 is a truncated icosahedron or soccer ball [19]. More what kind of regularity emerges with the application of the interestingly, the mesh strucures from M2 to M5 can be scheme [16]. In other words, the pattern of regular regions found in virus structures [17]. As seen in this example, the can be used to characterize the scheme. Based on regular most important property of the new scheme is that the re- regions, existing subdivision schemes can be classified into sulting mesh structures strongly resemble natural structures three major categories: such as cells or honeycombs. It is also interesting to note that their structure looks similar to Voronoi diagrams. ¤Corresponding Author: Address: 216 Langford Center, College Sta- tion, Texas 77843-3137. email: [email protected]. phone: +(979) 845- 1Vertices and faces are also called vertets and facets in order to avoid 6599. fax: +(979) 845-4491. confusion with the vertices and faces of a solid model [16]. 0 The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In vertex vn (See Figure 2.B) (we assume that the ver- the next section, we provide refinement rules for our general tex and edge indices are given in the order of a face honeycomb scheme. In Section 3, we introduce the coeffi- traversing). Compute the position of each new ver- cients of our honeycomb algorithm that are used to create tex as a linear combination of the old vertex positions 0 the meshes shown in Figure 1. Section 4 explains how to fv0; v1; : : : ; vn; : : : ; vN¡1g. Note that since vn’s cor- implement a remeshing algorithm for honeycomb subdivi- respond to edges instead of vertices, in order to derive sion. Section 5 discusses implementation and results. Fi- the coefficients of a honeycomb scheme, it will be use- nally, our conclusion is given in Section 6. ful to use the following linear equation: NX¡1 0 ¡ ¢ vn = an;m (1 ¡ t)vm + tv(m+1) (mod N) (1) m=0 where the an;m’s are real coefficients, N is the valence of the face and t is a real number between 0 and 1. (A) Initial mesh (B) New vertices are created (C) New faces are created Figure 1. Five iterations of our honeycomb scheme over a dodecahedron. (D) New edges are inserted (E) Final mesh Figure 2. Illustration of honeycomb process. 2. Refinement Rules for Honeycomb Schemes Remark 1. Note that (1 ¡ t)vm + tv(m+1) (mod N) is We give the refinement rules for a general honeycomb a point on the edge em. In our examples we generally algorithm as follows (The algorithm is also illustrated in use t = 0:5. Figure 2, where the black vertices and edges are new and ² Step 2 : For each face, create a new face by connecting constitute the new mesh, and the gray vertices and edges all the new points that have been generated by that face are in the old mesh and are removed by the algorithm.): (See Figure 2.C); ² Step 1 : For each edge en of a face f = ² Step 3 : For each edge of the mesh, connect the two fe0; e1; : : : ; en; : : : ; eN¡1g of the mesh, create a new new points that have been generated for that edge (See Figure 2.D); In these equations, the parameter a in equation (2) is provided by the users and is as a tension parameter [4]. ² Step 4 : Remove all old vertices and edges (See Fig- Note that the value of a controls the speed of convergence. ure 2.E). We suggest making a a decreasing function of N, i.e, for Remark 2. Let Fn, En and Vn denote the number of higher-sided faces (larger values of N) the algorithm must faces, edges and vertices created by nth iteration. It converge faster. In all the examples in this paper we use the is straightforward to show that Fn = Fn¡1 + Vn¡1, following function for a En = 3En¡1 and Vn = 2En¡1. Based on these equa- 1:25 tions, it follows that a = 0:45 + : N F lim n ¡! 3: n!1 Fn¡1 It is easy to verify that in this scheme, each coefficient an;m is always greater than zero if 1 > a > 0, and the co- In other words, this honeycomb subdivision scheme efficients do add up to 1. By using Fourier analysis, sim- increases the number of faces 3-fold at each itera- ilar to Doo-Sabin’s approach, we can show that the new tion. Therefore,p regular haneycomb scheme can also scheme also has three distinct but complex eigenvalues2. be called a 3 honeycomb algorithm [10]. The complex part comes from the phase shift introduced Remark 3. The support region of our honeycomb by the term vm + v(m+1) (mod ()N): Absolute values of the scheme (the region that is influenced by a given con- other eigenvectors will be smaller than one if a < 1, regard- trol vertex [16]) has a fractal boundary, a Koch island less of the value of N. Similar to Doo-Sabin’s scheme, only [15]. one eigenvector corresponds to the eigenvalue 1, two eigen- vectors correspond to the second largest (in absolute value) Remark 4. It is difficult to identify the precision eigenvalue and the rest of the eigenvectors correspond to the set of any honeycomb scheme (comparing the scheme smallest eigenvalue. Because of this property our scheme with a parameteric surface) since the regular regions of provides tangent plane continuity. the honeycomb scheme do not correspond correspond known to any parameterization scheme such as the ten- sor product or box-spline parameterizations. 4. Implementation and Results 3. The Coefficients of Our Honeycomb Algo- The remeshing algorithm explained in the section 2 has rithm been implemented in a C++ program. We applied the hon- eycomb algorithm to the various control shapes. Figure 3 Like any subdivision scheme relying on approximation, shows examples of applying our honeycomb scheme. The images at the left in Figure 3 show the control meshes and in honeycomb subdivision the coefficients an;m in step 1 in the above algorithm must satisfy the following conditions: images at the right show the mesh after four iterations of our honeycomb algorithm. It is interesting to note that the 1. an;m ¸ 0 for all n and m and honeycomb algorithm creates a very natural looking mesh structure. It therefore can be used after other subdivision N¡1 X schemes to create natural looking meshes. 2. for all n a = 1. n;m The honeycomb algorithm can create lateral artifacts m=0 [16]. Figure 4.(B) shows such an artifact.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Uniform Panoploid Tetracombs
    Uniform Panoploid Tetracombs George Olshevsky TETRACOMB is a four-dimensional tessellation. In any tessellation, the honeycells, which are the n-dimensional polytopes that tessellate the space, Amust by definition adjoin precisely along their facets, that is, their ( n!1)- dimensional elements, so that each facet belongs to exactly two honeycells. In the case of tetracombs, the honeycells are four-dimensional polytopes, or polychora, and their facets are polyhedra. For a tessellation to be uniform, the honeycells must all be uniform polytopes, and the vertices must be transitive on the symmetry group of the tessellation. Loosely speaking, therefore, the vertices must be “surrounded all alike” by the honeycells that meet there. If a tessellation is such that every point of its space not on a boundary between honeycells lies in the interior of exactly one honeycell, then it is panoploid. If one or more points of the space not on a boundary between honeycells lie inside more than one honeycell, the tessellation is polyploid. Tessellations may also be constructed that have “holes,” that is, regions that lie inside none of the honeycells; such tessellations are called holeycombs. It is possible for a polyploid tessellation to also be a holeycomb, but not for a panoploid tessellation, which must fill the entire space exactly once. Polyploid tessellations are also called starcombs or star-tessellations. Holeycombs usually arise when (n!1)-dimensional tessellations are themselves permitted to be honeycells; these take up the otherwise free facets that bound the “holes,” so that all the facets continue to belong to two honeycells. In this essay, as per its title, we are concerned with just the uniform panoploid tetracombs.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Application of the Honeycomb Conjecture to the Bee's Honeycomb
    On the Application of the Honeycomb Conjecture to the Bee’s Honeycomb∗y Tim Räzz July 29, 2014 Abstract In a recent paper, Aidan Lyon and Mark Colyvan have proposed an explanation of the structure of the bee’s honeycomb based on the mathematical Honeycomb Conjecture. This explanation has instantly become one of the standard examples in the philosophical debate on mathematical explanations of physical phenomena. In this critical note, I argue that the explanation is not scientifically adequate. The reason for this is that the explanation fails to do justice to the essen- tially three-dimensional structure of the bee’s honeycomb. Contents 1 Introduction 2 2 Lyon’s and Colyvan’s Explanation 2 3 Baker: A Philosophical Motivation 3 4 Why the Explanation Fails 4 4.1 The Explanation is Incomplete . .4 4.2 The Honeycomb Conjecture Is (Probably) Irrelevant . .7 ∗Acknowledgements: I am grateful to Mark Colyvan, Matthias Egg, Michael Esfeld, Martin Gasser, Marion Hämmerli, Michael Messerli, Antoine Muller, Christian Sachse, Tilman Sauer, Raphael Scholl, two anonymous referees, and the participants of the phi- losophy of science research seminar in the fall of 2012 in Lausanne for discussions and comments on previous drafts of this paper. The usual disclaimer applies. This work was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation, grants (100011-124462/1), (100018- 140201/1) yThis is a pre-copyedited, author-produced PDF of an article accepted for publication in Philosophia Mathematica following peer review. The definitive publisher-authenticated version, Räz, T. (2013): On the Application of the Honeycomb Conjecture to the Bee’s Honeycomb.
    [Show full text]
  • Designing Modular Sculpture Systems
    Bridges 2017 Conference Proceedings Designing Modular Sculpture Systems Christopher Carlson Wolfram Research, Inc 100 Trade Centre Drive Champaign, IL, 61820, USA E-mail: [email protected] Abstract We are interested in the sculptural possibilities of closed chains of modular units. One such system is embodied in MathMaker, a set of wooden pieces that can be connected end-to-end to create a fascinating variety of forms. MathMaker is based on a cubic honeycomb. We explore the possibilities of similar systems based on octahedral- tetrahedral, rhombic dodecahedral, and truncated octahedral honeycombs. Introduction The MathMaker construction kit consists of wooden parallelepipeds that can be connected end-to-end to make a great variety of sculptural forms [1]. Figure 1 shows on the left an untitled sculpture by Koos Verhoeff based on that system of modular units [2]. MathMaker derives from a cubic honeycomb. Each unit connects the center of one cubic face to the center of an adjacent face (Figure 1, center). Units connect via square planar faces which echo the square faces of cubes in the honeycomb. The square connecting faces can be matched in 4 ways via 90° rotation, so from any position each adjacent cubic face is accessible. A chain of MathMaker units jumps from cube to adjacent cube, adjacent units never traversing the same cube. A variant of MathMaker called “turned cross mitre” has units whose square cross-sections are rotated 45° about their central axes relative to the standard MathMaker units (Figure 1, right). Although the underlying cubic honeycomb structure is the same, the change in unit yields structures with strikingly different visual impressions.
    [Show full text]
  • Polyhedra and Packings from Hyperbolic Honeycombs
    Polyhedra and packings from hyperbolic honeycombs Martin Cramer Pedersena,1 and Stephen T. Hydea aDepartment of Applied Mathematics, Research School of Physics and Engineering, Australian National University, Canberra ACT 2601, Australia Edited by Robion C. Kirby, University of California, Berkeley, CA, and approved May 25, 2018 (received for review November 29, 2017) We derive more than 80 embeddings of 2D hyperbolic honey- Disc Packings and Triangular Patterns combs in Euclidean 3 space, forming 3-periodic infinite polyhedra The density of 2D hard disc packing is characterized by the ratio with cubic symmetry. All embeddings are “minimally frustrated,” of the total area of the packed objects to the area of the embed- formed by removing just enough isometries of the (regular, ding space. Thus, the hexagonal “penny packing” of equal discs but unphysical) 2D hyperbolic honeycombs f3, 7g, f3, 8g, f3, 9g, 2 realizes the maximal packing density in the plane, E (24, 25). f3, 10g, and f3, 12g to allow embeddings in Euclidean 3 space. Dense packings of equal discs on the surface of the 2 sphere, Nearly all of these triangulated “simplicial polyhedra” have sym- 2, are more subtle, since the sphere’s finite area means that metrically identical vertices, and most are chiral. The most sym- S optimal solutions depend on the disc radius. The formal defini- metric examples include 10 infinite “deltahedra,” with equilateral tion of packing density for equal discs in the third homogeneous triangular faces, 6 of which were previously unknown and some 2 of which can be described as packings of Platonic deltahedra. We 2D space—the hyperbolic plane, H —is also complicated by the describe also related cubic crystalline packings of equal hyper- nature of that space.
    [Show full text]
  • This Is a Set of Activities Using Both Isosceles and Equilateral Triangles
    This is a set of activities using both Isosceles and Equilateral Triangles. 3D tasks Technical information This pack includes 25 Equilateral Triangles and 25 Isosceles Triangles. You will also need a small tube of Copydex. If you are new to making models with Copydex we suggest you start by watching www.atm.org.uk/Using-ATM-MATs Different polyhedra to make Kit A: 4 Equilateral Triangle MATs. Place one triangle on your desk and join the other three triangles to its three sides, symmetrically. Now add glue to one edge of each of the three added triangles so that all can be joined into a polyhedron This is your first polyhedron. Kit B: 3 Isosceles triangles and 1 equilateral triangle Kit C: 4 Isosceles triangles Kit D: 6 Equilateral Triangles Kit E: 6 Isosceles Triangles Kit F: 3 Equilateral and 3 Isosceles Triangles. (are there different possible polyhedra this time?) Kit G: 8 Equilateral Triangles. One possibility is a Regular Octahedron, but is there more than one Octahedron? Kit H: 4 Equilateral and 4 Isosceles Triangles (are there different possible polyhedra this time?) Kit I: 2 Equilateral Triangles and 6 Isosceles Triangles Kit J: Go back to the Regular Octahedron (from Kit G) and add a Regular Tetrahedron to one of its faces, then add another … until four have been added. Keep track (in a table) of how many faces and vertices the Regular Octahedron and the next four polyhedra have. Hint: if you spaced the added Tetrahedra equally around the Octahedron you will find a bigger version of a previously made solid.
    [Show full text]
  • Cannonballs and Honeycombs, Volume 47, Number 4
    fea-hales.qxp 2/11/00 11:35 AM Page 440 Cannonballs and Honeycombs Thomas C. Hales hen Hilbert intro- market. “We need you down here right duced his famous list of away. We can stack the oranges, but 23 problems, he said we’re having trouble with the arti- a test of the perfec- chokes.” Wtion of a mathe- To me as a discrete geometer Figure 1. An matical problem is whether it there is a serious question be- optimal can be explained to the first hind the flippancy. Why is arrangement person in the street. Even the gulf so large between of equal balls after a full century, intuition and proof? is the face- Hilbert’s problems have Geometry taunts and de- centered never been thoroughly fies us. For example, what cubic tested. Who has ever chatted with about stacking tin cans? Can packing. a telemarketer about the Riemann hy- anyone doubt that parallel rows pothesis or discussed general reciprocity of upright cans give the best arrange- laws with the family physician? ment? Could some disordered heap of cans Last year a journalist from Plymouth, New waste less space? We say certainly not, but the Zealand, decided to put Hilbert’s 18th problem to proof escapes us. What is the shape of the cluster the test and took it to the street. Part of that prob- of three, four, or five soap bubbles of equal vol- lem can be phrased: Is there a better stacking of ume that minimizes total surface area? We blow oranges than the pyramids found at the fruit stand? bubbles and soon discover the answer but cannot In pyramids the oranges fill just over 74% of space prove it.
    [Show full text]
  • Families of Tessellations of Space by Elementary Polyhedra Via Retessellations of Face-Centered-Cubic and Related Tilings
    PHYSICAL REVIEW E 86, 041141 (2012) Families of tessellations of space by elementary polyhedra via retessellations of face-centered-cubic and related tilings Ruggero Gabbrielli* Interdisciplinary Laboratory for Computational Science, Department of Physics, University of Trento, 38123 Trento, Italy and Department of Chemistry, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08544, USA Yang Jiao† Physical Science in Oncology Center and Princeton Institute for the Science and Technology of Materials, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08544, USA Salvatore Torquato‡ Department of Chemistry, Department of Physics, Princeton Center for Theoretical Science, Program in Applied and Computational Mathematics and Princeton Institute for the Science and Technology of Materials, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08544, USA (Received 7 August 2012; published 22 October 2012) The problem of tiling or tessellating (i.e., completely filling) three-dimensional Euclidean space R3 with polyhedra has fascinated people for centuries and continues to intrigue mathematicians and scientists today. Tilings are of fundamental importance to the understanding of the underlying structures for a wide range of systems in the biological, chemical, and physical sciences. In this paper, we enumerate and investigate the most comprehensive set of tilings of R3 by any two regular polyhedra known to date. We find that among all of the Platonic solids, only the tetrahedron and octahedron can be combined to tile R3. For tilings composed of only congruent tetrahedra and congruent octahedra, there seem to be only four distinct ratios between the sides of the two polyhedra. These four canonical periodic tilings are, respectively, associated with certain packings of tetrahedra (octahedra) in which the holes are octahedra (tetrahedra).
    [Show full text]
  • Self-Assembly of a Space-Tessellating Struc- Ture in the Binary System of Hard Tetrahedra and Octahedra†
    Electronic Supplementary Material (ESI) for Soft Matter. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2016 Supplementary Information: Self-assembly of a space-tessellating struc- ture in the binary system of hard tetrahedra and octahedra† A. T. Cadotte,a‡, J. Dshemuchadse,b‡ P. F. Damasceno,a§ R. S. Newman,b and S. C. Glotzer∗a;b;c;d Structure analysis with bond order diagrams 4-fold 3-fold 2-fold The crystal structures observed in this study were an- alyzed primarily by visual inspection. However, bond- orientational order diagrams (BODs) 1 were also found to 2 be instructive, especially when investigating structural sub- -OT c tleties. In the binary structure, the BODs were also gener- ated both for the mixture of polyhedra and for tetrahedra and octahedra separately. In the binary crystal, the centers of the tetrahedra form a simple cubic lattice, and the octa- (T) hedra form a face-centered cubic lattice. The BODs of the 2 binary structure and the octahedra packings are shown in -OT Fig. S1, the ones of the dodecagonal quasicrystal in Fig. S2. c The quasicrystal of tetrahedra has a particular signature in the BOD, resembling a cylinder and resulting in dark spots aligned with the 12-fold axis of the dodecagonal structure. (O) Quasicrystal binary-crystal coexistence 2 -OT Small numbers of octahedra that are present in a sim- c ulation of mainly tetrahedra have a preferred alignment within the quasicrystal. In some cases, they form five- rings, alternating with pentagonal bipyramids of tetrahe- dra, similar to a model of dodecagonal Al–Mn 2–4, as shown -O in Fig.
    [Show full text]
  • Math.GT] 29 Nov 2017 Embedded in Skeletons (Or Scaffoldings) of the Canonical Cubical Honeycombs of an Euclidean Or Hyperbolic Space
    Topological surfaces as gridded surfaces in geometrical spaces. Juan Pablo D´ıaz,∗ Gabriela Hinojosa, Alberto Verjosvky, y November 27, 2017 Abstract In this paper we study topological surfaces as gridded surfaces in the 2-dimensional scaffolding of cubic honeycombs in Euclidean and hy- perbolic spaces. Keywords: Cubulated surfaces, gridded surfaces, euclidean and hyperbolic honeycombs. AMS subject classification: Primary 57Q15, Secondary 57Q25, 57Q05. 1 Introduction The category of cubic complexes and cubic maps is similar to the simplicial category. The only difference consists in considering cubes of different di- mensions instead of simplexes. In this context, a cubulation of a manifold is a cubical complex which is PL homeomorphic to the manifold (see [4], [7], [12]). In this paper we study the realizations of cubulations of manifolds arXiv:1703.06944v2 [math.GT] 29 Nov 2017 embedded in skeletons (or scaffoldings) of the canonical cubical honeycombs of an euclidean or hyperbolic space. In [1] it was shown the following theorem: ∗This work was supported by FORDECYT 265667 (M´exico) yThis work was partially supported by CONACyT (M´exico),CB-2009-129280 and PA- PIIT (Universidad Nacional Aut´onomade M´exico)#IN106817. 1 Theorem 1.1. Let M; N ⊂ Rn+2, N ⊂ M, be closed and smooth subman- ifolds of Rn+2 such that dimension (M) = n + 1 and dimension (N) = n. Suppose that N has a trivial normal bundle in M (i.e., N is a two-sided hy- persurface of M). Then there exists an ambient isotopy of Rn+2 which takes M into the (n+1)-skeleton of the canonical cubulation C of Rn+2 and N into the n-skeleton of C.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:1707.09780V1 [Cond-Mat.Mes-Hall] 31 Jul 2017 Not Only in Zigzag and Bearded Terminations, but Also in Arm- Chair Edges [10]
    Optical properties of honeycomb photonic structures Artem D. Sinelnik1, Mikhail V. Rybin2;3,∗ Stanislav Y. Lukashenko1, Mikhail F. Limonov2;3, and Kirill B. Samusev2;3 1Department of Nanophotonics and Metamaterials, ITMO University, St. Petersburg 197101, Russia 2Ioffe Institute, St. Petersburg 194021, Russia and 3Department of Dielectric and Semiconductor Photonics, ITMO University, St.Petersburg 197101, Russia (Dated: September 5, 2018) We study, theoretically and experimentally, optical properties of different types of honeycomb photonic struc- tures, known also as ‘photonic graphene’. First, we employ the two-photon polymerization method to fabricate the honeycomb structures. In experiment, we observe a strong diffraction from a finite number of elements, thus providing a unique tool to define the exact number of scattering elements in the structure by a naked eye. Then, we study theoretically the transmission spectra of both honeycomb single layer and 2D structures of parallel dielectric circular rods. When the dielectric constant of the rod materials " is increasing, we reveal that a two- dimensional photonic graphene structure transforms into a metamaterial when the lowest TE01 Mie gap opens up below the lowest Bragg bandgap. We also observe two Dirac points in the band structure of 2D photonic graphene at the K point of the Brillouin zone and demonstrate a manifestation of the Dirac lensing for the TM polarization. The performance of the Dirac lens is that the 2D photonic graphene layer converts a wave from point source into a beam with flat phase surfaces at the Dirac frequency for the TM polarization. I. INTRODUCTION is one of the physical phenomena that can be observed in the photonic as well as in the electronic realization of graphene.
    [Show full text]
  • Efficient Algorithm for Large Spectral Partitions
    Efficient algorithm for optimizing spectral partitions Beniamin Bogosel Abstract We present an amelioration of current known algorithms for optimal spectral partition- ing problems. The idea is to use the advantage of a representation using density functions while decreasing the computational time. This is done by restricting the computation to neighbourhoods of regions where the associated densities are above a certain threshold. The algorithm extends and improves known methods in the plane and on surfaces in di- mension 3. It also makes possible to make some of the first computations of volumic 3D spectral partitions on sufficiently large discretizations. 1 Introduction Recently many works were dedicated to the numerical study of spectral partitions in the plane and on surfaces in R3. These studies are motivated by the lack of an exact theoretical descrip- tion even in the simplest cases. One question which remains open is the study of the spectral honeycomb problem. What is the partition of the plane which asymptotically minimizes the sum of the first eigenvalues of the Dirichlet Laplacian of each cell? It was conjectured in [CL07] that the honeycomb partition is the best one. Big steps towards the proof of this conjecture were made in [BFVV17], where the authors prove that the spectral honeycomb conjecture is true among convex sets under the hypothesis that Polya’s conejcture holds for hexagons and a slightly weaker version holds for pentagons and heptagons. We recall that Polya’s conjecture states that among n-gons of fixed area, the regular one minimizes the first Dirichlet eigenvalue. Recent numerical simulations which confirm Polya’s conjecture can be found in [Bog15, Chap- ter 1].
    [Show full text]
  • Honeycombs & Hexagonal Geometry
    Introductory Module: Honeycombs are examples of well-adapted multi-purpose natural habitat structures that incorporate strength, versatility and material efficiency. LESSON: The Sweet ‘Bees-ness’ of Honeycomb and the Mathematics of Hexagonal Geometry Activity Purpose: 1) To develop an understanding that living things have structural features and adaptations that help them to survive in their environment and that growth and survival of living things are affected by physical conditions of their environment. 2) To investigate the properties of regular and irregular polygons and polyhedra and solve problems using geometric and algebraic reasoning. 3) To explore the application of algebraic expressions to describe geometric patterns, and solve problems by extending and applying the laws and properties of arithmetic to algebraic terms and expressions Student success criteria Questioning and predicting: With guidance, identify questions and problems associated with the geometry and structure of honeycombs that can be investigated mathematically and scientifically; and Make modelled predictions about honeycomb structures based on mathematical and scientific knowledge. Processing and analysing data and information: Summarise data from an investigation of honeycomb, use this understanding to identify relationships between natural structures and mathematical reasoning and draw conclusions based on findings Applying mathematical reasoning: Investigate and establish the properties of quadrilaterals and other polygons; regular and irregular tessellations and recurring geometric patterns Use algebra to express simple models describing geometric patterns and use algebraic expressions and mathematical reasoning to solve problems Communicating: Students will communicate their ideas and explanations on the geometry and structures of honeycombs using scientific written descriptions, geometric diagrams and simple algebraic models. Suggested Time: Approx.
    [Show full text]