Polygons: Meister was right and Poinsot was wrong but prevailed (Q664196): Difference between revisions

Starting with the universally accepted definition of a polygon as a cyclically ordered sequence \(V_1, \dots, V_n\) of points together with the line segments \([V_0,V_1], \dots, [V_{n-1},V_n], [V_n,V_1]\) determined by the adjacent pairs in the sequence, the author addresses the issue of whether the points \(V_i\) are required to be distinct. Focusing on the contrasting attitudes of Meister (1724--1788), who stresses that the points do not have to be distinct, and Poinsot (1777--1859), who explicitly requires them to be distinct, he also surveys the attitudes of other mathematicians of the past two centuries such as Steinitz, Rademacher, Dostor, Günther, and others. The basic goal of the article is to point to the drawbacks of Poinsot's restriction and the complications and inconsistencies it leads to. These drawbacks are manifested in the breakdown in continuity in situations where continuity is expected, in the difficulty of formulating theorems about polygons in a general way (as in the theorem associated with van Aubel), in the enumeration of uniform polyhedra, in the study of isohedra with equilateral triangles as faces, in the treatment of relatives and extensions of the theorem associated with Napoleon, and so on. This encyclopedic paper contains a wealth of information that is hard to find anywhere else and that is of interest to students of geometry as well as to students of its foundations and history. It is also very pleasant to read.