Cartographic Projection
every map is wrong, and by exactly how much
Concept

Platonic solid — where it appears

One of the five convex solids with identical regular faces, each of which is a polyhedral map's choice between distortion and cutting. More faces buy less distortion inside a face and more cutting between them, and more corners at which no indicatrix exists.

Named by 11 essays across 3 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

The icosahedron's faces, drawn on the sphere. The edges of the icosahedron projected radially onto the sphere, which is the partition of the world a polyhedral map uses: everything inside one spherical polygon is drawn on one flat face. Each face spans 25.8° from its centre to its own boundary, and the gnomonic map onto it reaches 6.6° of angular deformation at the corners. Drawn in an orthographic projection of the embedding, which is a map with its own distortion.

The globe on a solid

Cylinder, cone and plane are not the only surfaces a sphere can be laid on. Project it onto a polyhedron and the curvature goes entirely to the corners — π at each of the tetrahedron's four, π/5 at each of the dodecahedron's twenty, and always 4π in total, which is exactly the curvature of the sphere it replaced.

families · Polyhedral Which edges to cut is a spanning tree. The icosahedron's faces as nodes and its 30 shared edges as links. A net keeps 19 of those joins and cuts the rest, and the joins have to form a spanning tree — connected, so the net is one piece, and acyclic, so it lies flat. The heavy links are one such tree. The number of distinct nets is therefore the number of spanning trees of this graph, which Kirchhoff's theorem gives as a determinant: 5,184,000 for the icosahedron.

The cut has to go somewhere

A solid lies flat only if it is cut open, and which edges to cut is a spanning tree of the face graph — so the icosahedron has exactly 5,184,000 distinct nets, a determinant rather than an estimate. All 384 of the cube's were laid flat and tested: not one overlaps, while an irregular tetrahedron overlaps in four of its sixteen.

families · Polyhedral The conformal map onto a square face of a cube. The spherical face of a cube carried onto its flat face by a map that is conformal everywhere — the measured angular deformation over the drawn interior is 1.63e-6°, which is the arithmetic's own floor. The rings and spokes are circles and radii on the sphere, and they cross at right angles here because that is what conformal means. The map was solved for as 16 terms of a series rather than written down: the face's edge comes out straight to 0.33 per cent of its own half-width, and that residual — not the conformality — is what more terms buy. At each corner the map behaves like ζ^0.75, so the scale factor there is infinite.

A conformal map onto a face

The polyhedral ladder ended owing a conformal face map, on the grounds that it needs elliptic functions. It does not: a conformal map of the sphere is an analytic function of one conformal coordinate, so the map is a power series, choosing it is a least-squares fit — and its scale factor is infinite at the corners, which is the angle deficit arriving as a singularity.

families · Polyhedral Past the five solids: what more faces buy, and what they cost. The icosahedron subdivided 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 ways, giving 20, 80, 180, 320, 720, 1280 faces. The worst angular deformation inside a face falls from 13.1° to 0.26°, with a fitted exponent of -0.947 against the face count — the reciprocal, as it must be, because a face's angular size goes as the inverse square root of the count and the gnomonic's deformation goes as the square of that. The total cut length rises from 11.6 to 96 sphere radii, fitted at 0.509. Both exponents together say the whole economics of the family in one line: halving the distortion costs √2 times the cutting, for ever.

More faces, less distortion, more cutting

The five regular solids are where polyhedral mapping stops, and they stop because there are only five rather than for any reason about maps. Subdivide instead, and the family runs to any number of faces with two fitted exponents: distortion falls as the reciprocal of the count and cutting rises as its square root.

families · Polyhedral How thinly a sphere can be covered by a few equal caps. The covering density of the best arrangement of n equal caps found for each n — the total area of the caps divided by the sphere's, so a value of one would be a perfect tiling with no overlap. The horizontal line is 2π/√27 = 1.2092, the thinnest covering density of the PLANE by equal discs, which this site has used for the sphere since its first atlas essay. It is wrong in both directions: at 2 caps the sphere is covered more thinly than any plane can be, because a cap may be a hemisphere, and at every count from 3 upwards more thickly — 1.5092 at 3, and 1.3377 at 14. The ringed points are the four counts whose optimum is proved: 2 at 90.00°, 4 at 70.53°, 6 at 54.74°, 12 at 37.38°. Everything else is an upper bound from a search, drawn as one, and the bound loosens as the count rises — the search reaches the proved optimum to 3.4 per cent at these counts and has no such check anywhere else.

The sphere is not the plane at small counts

The site's atlas arithmetic multiplies an ideal sheet count by 2π/√27, the thinnest covering density of the plane. At the four counts whose optimal covering of the sphere is a theorem the plane's number is 21 per cent high at two caps and 9, 5 and 2 per cent low at four, six and twelve — wrong in both directions, and the direction changes with the count.

choosing · Choosing Two nets of the same solid, cut to the same length. Every net of a Platonic solid severs exactly the same number of edges, all of the same length, so the total length of the cut is a constant and cannot choose between them. Each line joins the two places a severed edge ends up. Left: the net that keeps them closest, 11.30 edge lengths in total. Right: the net that puts them furthest apart, 17.97 — a factor of 1.59 for the same amount of cutting.

The net that loses the fewest neighbours

Every one of the cube's 384 nets cuts exactly seven edges of exactly the same length, so the quantity this collection has been pricing cutting by is a constant that cannot choose between them. Measured on the reader's side — how far apart a net puts two places that touch on the globe — the best net scores 11.30 and the worst 17.97, for identical cutting.

families · Polyhedral Two unfoldings of the same 80-face solid. Both are edge unfoldings of the same solid along different spanning trees of its face graph, so both preserve every distance on the surface exactly. The left one is a net. The right one is not: 3 pairs of its faces occupy the same ground, so it cannot be cut out of paper and folded up. Nothing in the unfolding procedure prevents this, and past the regular solids most trees produce it.

A net can land on top of itself

Every one of the cube's 384 unfoldings is a net, and every one of the icosahedron's five million is too. Past the regular solids that stops being true: at 180 faces, 99 of every 100 randomly chosen unfoldings have faces sitting on top of each other, so choosing a net stops being a choice and becomes a search — except that the net anybody would actually draw works every time.

families · Polyhedral Every one of the cube's 384 nets, scored. All 384 spanning trees of the cube's face graph, unfolded and scored on the total separation their cuts leave: how far apart, in edge lengths, the two copies of each cut edge end up on the page. Every one of them is a valid net — no Platonic unfolding overlaps — and they range from 11.30 to 17.97, a factor of 1.59. The heuristic of unfolding outwards from a chosen face lands on the first of them, exactly.

What the net heuristic cannot find

Rung seven chose a net by unfolding outwards from a face and showed the choice beats guessing, and recorded that its own limit was unknown. Enumerated in full, the heuristic turns out to be exactly optimal on every solid small enough to check — rank one of 384 — and above that ceiling no sample can tell whether it still is, because eight hundred random nets never reach it.

families · Polyhedral Three face maps on a cube, over a shrinking span. The corner a feature gets crossing the seam of a cube, measured by reading the tangent over an arc and then shrinking the arc by a factor of sixteen. A chord differs from a tangent in proportion to the arc, so a perfectly smooth join reports a corner that HALVES when the span halves — a slope of one on these axes. None of the three lines has a slope of one. The fitted slopes are 0.000, 0.000, -0.018, which is a flat line in each case, and a flat line is a real corner. The three differ in size and not in kind: 20.1513°, 7.2772°, 0.7687°.

The span ladder, run on all five

A recorded shortfall said the exact map's span ladder was one loop away from settling the seam on the five Platonic solids. The loop was run and the answer is the other one: the series conformal face map has a corner that does not shrink with the measurement span on any of them — 4.10° on the tetrahedron, 0.77 on the cube, 0.004 on the icosahedron — and it belongs to the truncation rather than to conformality.

families · Polyhedral Walking the crossing all the way to a cube's vertex. The corner a feature gets crossing the seam, at crossings that approach the vertex geometrically — the last is 3.5e-4 degrees from it. Every face map is singular at a vertex, so the expectation is that the corner runs away. It does not. The gnomonic settles at 53.1295° and the equal-area map at 12.9656°, and both are finite. The dashed line is the solid's angle deficit, 90.0°, which is what the surface loses at that point and is not what either map's corner reaches.

The corner that is the curvature

Every face map is singular at a vertex, so a corner that grows as the crossing walks towards one should run away. It does not: the gnomonic settles at 53.1295° on a cube and the equal-area map at 12.9656, both finite, both reached like the first power of the remaining gap. What does not settle is the deficit beside them — 90 degrees, fixed by Descartes before any projection is chosen.

families · Polyhedral The same tiling, turned. The cube's eight vertices, ringed, and eight cities, with the aspect of the cell each city falls in written beside it. The two panels are the same tiling: the same cells, the same areas, the same shapes, in the same numbers. Only where they sit has changed, and the eight cities get cells whose areas spread by 1.26 in one and 1.39 in the other. Drawn on Mollweide, in which equal ground areas are equal page areas.

The orientation is a policy

A polyhedral cell system has three free angles nobody scores. They cannot improve it: rotating the solid rotates every cell rigidly, so the distribution of cell areas is identical for every orientation there is. What they decide is who stands on the bad cells — and the eight cities measured here get a spread of cell area of 1.00 under the best turn and 1.50 under the worst.

applied · Cells

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

Polyhedral projectionAngle deficitInterruptionSpanning treeCombinatoricsFaceClosed formConvergence rateDiscontinuityIcosahedronToleranceTopology

All concepts