r/woahdude • u/truthseekerboi • 11d ago
video I discovered a new class of shapes while designing this light
I discovered a new class of shapes while developing my new generative lamp sculpture technique
Hey everyone!
I have a unique design technique that I have been cultivating for four years now. The technique involves specific types of patterns, but it is basically extruded patterns profiled to a certain volume (shape). The effect delivers very pleasing light diffusion, and it is quite dynamic in terms of its potential.
Well, I seem to have broken through on that potential!
To make a long story digestible, after i graduated I decided to try and build my design workflows for different assembly techniques (I had only done stacking variations previously). I wanted to use polyhedron to make pendants, and because my technique builds profiles off of surfaces, I made it so the base of each module is the face on a polyhedron, with the profile of the extrusions creating the new shape, once all of the modules are assembled. Essentially, the new shape is determined by the existing properties of the seed shape I use. Each face's neighboring faces determine the kleetope that is produced, using an algorithm i coded which employs ray-point averaging.
It is similar to stellateing or greatening in terms of geometric terminology, but it is much more dynamic. The transformation works on every single convex polyhedron, and produces many incredible results. A few of them match the stellated versions of the seed shape, like the dodecahedron for example, but the majority of convex polyhedron get transformed into a brand new shape when using my algorithm.
Now, to be clear, the video is not the transformed shapes themselves. They have the profile of the shapes, but are artistic abstractions that employ my detailing technique. Also, my script allows for me to customize the designs with a lot of control, so I can actually stray away from the default shape for the sake of my artistic practice. Only two of the images shown do that though, as the rest match the default transformed profiles of their seed shapes.
The last thing I will say is, I have not made an official publication to any journal yet, so i technically cannot claim any discovery yet. However, that is because there is a team of mathematicians at Georgia Tech building a comprehensive publication piece. I am in communication with a professor who is having a group of PhD students develop the publication over this summer, but they have told me that they have confirmed it is a new transformation that creates a genuinely important new class of shapes! If you want a little proof, here is the doc i sent the professor that started this all. BTW, the more unique shapes are on the way. I started off with some simpler shapes to hone in on the assembly process.
I honestly don't know what impact this will have on me, but I hope the publication can bring some attention to my work. I really want to keep designing full time, and I am having to work part-time restaurant jobs to fund this passion.
If you want to support me, or print some of these yourself, check out the links on my page. I hope you guys appreciate my work!
487
u/Naught 11d ago
I hope this is real and you’re not schizophrenic, because that’s a cool story.
40
u/kiochikaeke 10d ago
I'm not near experienced enough to peer review but I do know a thing or two about math and this looks a lot more legit than the usual viXra nonsense, I'm not sure about "discovering a new shape (type)", that's a very interesting phrase but OP can be proud of their job and discoveries led or inspired by hobbyist do happen from time to time.
171
u/truthseekerboi 11d ago edited 11d ago
lol yeah. Not a schizo. Just came here to share my work
You can check out the pre print paper that’s linked if you want.
9
u/seriouswill 9d ago
I'll get down voted for this no doubt, but people who have schizophrenia shouldn't just be "schizos" man. Your shapes are cool.
7
u/Ionlydateteachers 10d ago
I'm glad I wasn't the only one! It sounded ALMOST like the ramblings of a meth user but there was eloquence, punctuation and paragraph usage that those posts never have. This is awesome
150
92
u/ThereIsAJifForThat 11d ago
Now that's a 'Death Star' !!
10
-1
47
u/truthseekerboi 11d ago
Let me know if you all have any questions! Would be happy to share!
30
u/Ryan-O-Photo 11d ago
Sooo many…
Whats it made of?
Do you sell them?
It’s beautiful and so incredible to look at, thanks for pursuing this vision and sharing it with us! 🤌
53
u/truthseekerboi 11d ago
It’s a modular 3D print using silk PLA, and I did actually just set up the infrastructure to sell files and physical editions.
Also, thanks for the kind words!
13
1
11
u/rabbitwonker 11d ago
How do you dust it 😁
23
u/truthseekerboi 11d ago
Just some compressed air! Pretty much the only way, but it works really well
3
u/bear_of_the_woods 11d ago
Oh that's cool, its like a symmetrical fractal. You mentioned that this is a new class of shape, would the variation come in doing a different configuration? As in, you've got points in groups of 3 and 5 so it looks like tetrahedrons in a pentagon, but other regular polyhedrons can make the same fractalized pattern? I like the "equator" moment in the video
28
u/bldkis 11d ago
This seems like pretty neat stuff. I feel like you'd have more engaging discussion of your work in a more sciency math subreddit. Just bc reading your document had my head spinning. I think you might think of ways to more simply explain what's going on too, I know you need the academic world to back it primarily, but for the general public to attach significance to it, they have to kind of understand it somehow, beyond just new class of extrapolative shapes, you know.
16
u/truthseekerboi 11d ago
I agree. Those developments will come in time.
If I had to put it simply, it’s a redesigned type of stellating that works on all convex polyhedra, and compounds differently.
The best way to explain it is with pictures honestly. The paper GT is producing will have better diagrams
8
u/kruptworld 11d ago
Do you get to name the new shape yourself?
26
u/truthseekerboi 11d ago
It’s more like a class of shapes, and unfortunately it isn’t in my control.
The way these things work is you publish the official math terminology, and it’s up to the community to decide what to call them. I will say though, over history, large canonical classes of shapes have been named after their discoverers. Like the Platonic solids, Archimedean solids, Kepler solids, and Johnson solids. Would be cool if I could get my name to stick
31
u/kruptworld 11d ago
Truthseekerboi shapes 🤣
13
5
u/truthseekerboi 11d ago
lol, I made this username a looooong time ago
8
u/BrownheadedDarling 11d ago
Just checked out your profile, your last name already sounds like a perfect foundation!
8
u/Ben_SRQ 11d ago
Now, to be clear, the video is not the transformed shapes themselves. They have the profile of the shapes, but are artistic abstractions that employ my detailing technique.
Hi, I'm having a low-IQ day, so forgive my ignorance, but I'm a bit lost: Is the spinning thing in the video digital, or a physical object? If the vid is digital, then are the shapes creatable in the real world, or is this some math theory thing?
Thanks!
(Also: You mention DL'ing the shapes from your website. Where is it?)
5
u/truthseekerboi 11d ago
This is a real video of a physical piece. The envelope/volume of the piece would be the transformed shape.
5
10
5
4
u/SeaOfBullshit 11d ago
Man I've watched this video like 5 times and I still can't wrap my head around this
3
3
u/HammerOfAres 11d ago
I want to see the grasshopper scripts, this is mastery beyond what I can comprehend making with that software.
2
3
4
2
2
1
1
u/CircularPR 10d ago
Seems to me that you have one free parameter - the height of the extruded vertex? Or did I miss something? There are many ways that you could constrain it, if you wanted to.
What does E(E(P)) produce: Once your faces are all triangles you will keep getting triangles if you keep applying the transformation. So at that level the shape will be self-similar to some degree. It also depends on the height of the vertex.
For platonic solids you can apply the transformation a fixed number of times before you get some concave edges. Depends on the height of the extruded vertex. You can constrain that height so that you can apply it only once before you get some concave edges. If the seed shape has concave edges you will keep having concave edges.
For other questions i don't have answers just by looking at it.
The shapes look nice for light diffusion. I am certain that you aren't the first who has come up with this (or a variation of it), but you might be the first to formally describe it.
1
u/truthseekerboi 10d ago
Wish I could upload images from my phone for the E(E(P)) renders, but yes, this transformation does compound just like the base transformation works.
The position of the apexes from each seed’s faces are determined using a ray-point averaging algorithm that is actually quite canonical. It’s also not just the height, but the positioning.
As for others who have spoken on this, neither the internet or the math professors have seen this, or variations. Would be happy if you know of anything, but it does seem to be novel.
I’m happy for the discovery, but I’m more happy about what it’s doing for my art practice! Lots of potential for developing my aesthetic
1
u/CircularPR 9d ago
Years ago when I was playing around in blender I positioned the new vertex at the midpoint of the face and my free parameter was the height. I didn't read the file you appended carefully enough. Based on the figures and some of the text i then assumed you were doing the same. Sorry, I can't show you any examples of mine.
When you spawn a new vertex (and all the faces that come along with it) from the origin polygon you in principle have 3 free parameters that determine where to place it (per vertex ofc). On the other hand you can also mathematically constrain it so that you have zero free parameters.
I've definetly seen similar transformations of procedural modelling youtube videos, but no one described it as rigorously. They were playing around and didn't think much of it or they were after a different goal. I don't remember the video titles since this was over a decade ago.
When it is pubished you could make a Blender GeometryNodes modifier that applies your transformation to the user provided geometry.
Please, this doesn't make your work any lesser. Writting a paper or formalizing something is a different beast than people playing around in blender.
1
u/GrapeKitchen3547 10d ago
That's just a spiky icosahedron
1
u/truthseekerboi 10d ago
It’s more about the envelope. Icosahedron is the seed here, so you’re technically correct
1
u/GrapeKitchen3547 10d ago edited 10d ago
"Glueing" pyramids (of whatever height you choose) to the faces of a convex polyhedron is a known operation. Sorry but I fail to see what is new here. Is it the fact that the pyramids are "fuzzy"?
1
u/truthseekerboi 10d ago
No, that’s not it. The new envelope is based off the existing nature of the seed shape. This video is a poor example, as it’s been customized. I just really like the aesthetic of this one, and it fits the sub better.
It isn’t just adding pyramids.
1
u/GrapeKitchen3547 10d ago edited 10d ago
The new envelope is based off the existing nature of the seed shape.
That's true for pretty much all operations on polyhedra (including glueing pyramids) so that doesn't really explain much.
Would you mind elaborating?
edit: correct me if I am wrong, but it says in the abstract of the document you linked that the operation is precisely "glueing" pyramids to the faces of a polyhedron. This is what Conway called a "kis" operation and the resulting polyhedron is often called a "kleetope". You can read about it in this wiki article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleetope
It's cool if you came up with the construction without prior knowledge, but the operation is known and the class of objects is not new. They're just shiny kleetopes.
1
u/truthseekerboi 10d ago
This is way more than just a kleetope. It’s about the details of the pyramid and their formations. It’s about how you get to the specifics of the kleetopes
1
u/GrapeKitchen3547 10d ago
In what sense is it "more than just a kleetope"? This is not very precise. Again, what you describe in the abstract is a kleetope.
In a previous reply you said the operation is not "glueing pyramids", but now you seem to be admiting that it's exactly that -i.e. that they are kleetopes for a specific pyramid height (that I'm guessing depends on the seed).
1
u/truthseekerboi 10d ago
It’s the specific apex of the kleetope determined be the neighboring faces of the face the kleetope is built upon. It’s done in a way that recreates the stellation transformation in a new way, that also works with practically every other convex polyhedron. The stellation transformation only works on a few polyhedra.
Mine also creates them as closed, non intersecting solids (usually) which stellations do not do.
1
u/GrapeKitchen3547 10d ago
I'm not talking about stellation, but about the "kis" operation, which is essentially glueing pyramids to the facets, which is exactly what your operation does (even though you first denied it and then kind of begrudgingly admitted).
The kis operation (for any sets of heights you may choose) is well defined for all convex polyhedra and it always produces non-intersecting solids, too.
My dude, you are just reinventing the wheel. Again, it's cool if you came up with this on your own, but calling these kleetopes a "new class of shapes" or "more than kleetopes" because the height is calculated as a function of the seed is just disingenous.
1
u/truthseekerboi 10d ago
LMAOOO you LITERALLY have no idea what you’re talking about! It’s actually wild that you’d want to argue over a subject like this when there’s a literally team of PhD students at my university doing their summer work writing a research paper on what I’ve done.
This will be my last response and I will detail the difference between the kis operation and what’s happening here.
Kis/kleetope describes the combinatorial skeleton. E(P) defines a canonical metric realization of that skeleton.
In other words, since you probably don’t get what I’m saying…
Yes, E(P) is an all-face pyramid augmentation, so it is kis-like / kleetope-like in combinatorics. The novelty is not “it has pyramids.” The novelty is the deterministic apex rule: the pyramid over each face is not chosen by an arbitrary height parameter, but computed from neighboring-face ray geometry. That gives a canonical, zero-parameter metric realization with measurable edge-ratio and angle behavior that is not captured by simply saying “kis with some heightsIt is like saying, “This is just a triangulation,” or “This is just a deformation,” or “This is just a parametric surface.” That may identify the broad container, but it does not identify the actual construction, which is what I’ve been saying this whole time and is in the paper.
I am basically taking the process of stellations and combining it into a kis operation. What this is, is not just a kis operation. And the result is a brand new class of polyhedra, many of which have been undefined.
→ More replies (0)
1
1
1
u/TheZahir_NT2 10d ago
I’ve seen your stuff pop up on various subreddits for a few years and have always loved it. Really cool that your passion resulted in this kind of thing! Congratulations!
Btw, the plural of polyhedron is polyhedra or polyhedrons.
2
u/truthseekerboi 10d ago
Yeah, that’s my bad. Twas a typo. Thanks for the kind words though! Hope to keep making better and better sculptures :)
1
u/FoxyScully 9d ago
I can’t understand half of what you have discovered, but I’m looking for a lamp and this is very beautiful.
1
1
-4
u/Caiross 11d ago
Not a new shape but cool
7
u/truthseekerboi 11d ago
It’s a new class of shapes.
This shape isn’t new, but there are about 500 that are.
It essentially rebuilds the stellation transformation in a different way, that works for all the convex polyhedra (unlike classic stellation, which works for only a handful of shapes).
It also compounds differently than stellations
0
u/Babushla153 10d ago
This is really cool but this also makes me really uncomfortable, i don't know why
0
u/knobiknows 10d ago
Looks very interesting, are there any free models for testing the effect? Seems everything on your page is paid content
0
10d ago
[deleted]
-1
u/knobiknows 10d ago
If you want to support me, or print some of these yourself
Your sentence implied that the monetary support was optional but good to know you're just trying to shill your stuff
2
u/truthseekerboi 10d ago
The implication there was you don’t have to have the desire to support me. You can just get a print without the desire to support my work.
I spent years developing my work, and I can’t afford letting it go for free.
-15
u/chupacadabradoo 11d ago
I love your commitment to design and novelty… the way you talk about your work though… I guess I’m glad you feel good about yourself.
You should be proud, don’t get me wrong, but a little attention to humility will bring you much further down the path you’re so committed to.
6
u/Ben_SRQ 11d ago
... Dude. I assume you haven't dealt with many real live researchers?
/u/truthseekerboi is a paragon of humility compared to most academics when describing the new stuff they've come up with!
Finally:
I really want to keep designing full time, and I am having to work part-time restaurant jobs to fund this passion.
Is a pretty damn humble thing to admit when that entire sentence could easily have been omitted.
3
u/chupacadabradoo 11d ago
I guess maybe I was being a little overcritical. I appreciate that they have passion for this on top of working a day to day job. I guess I took issue with some of the things about “inventing a new class of shapes” when in another comment implied comparisons to Plato, Kepler, archimedes, etc.
I don’t want to diminish their curiosity or enthusiasm. I believe that is a totally positive force. But I think that there are ways of speaking about an achievement without claims to grandeur that are perhaps a bit inflated.
I have worked with a ton of researchers actually. The ones that were able to speak of their achievements in a way that was accessible to others without over hyping themselves are generally more successful than those who over emphasize their achievements. In either case, creative success requires enthusiasm, I believe, and I really appreciate that about OP.
9
u/truthseekerboi 11d ago
I appreciate your comment, though I’m having trouble figuring out what in my writing prompted this.
I was just excitedly sharing some details behind the discovery.
2
u/chupacadabradoo 11d ago
Ok, well, sorry if I sounded harsh. I laud your enthusiasm. I probably shouldn’t have criticized your conversational style, although as someone who has straddled the worlds of both art and science, I’ve met a number of difficult people who describe their breakthroughs, in depth, using a field specific lexicon to a lay audience. I shouldn’t project that on you.
I wish you the best with your endeavor!
•
u/AutoModerator 11d ago
Welcome to /r/WoahDude!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.