All but the last question in this are rhetorical and not the main question I'm asking

I recently had a high school maths lesson about frustums and it got me thinking about ways of viewing pyramids. And, while imagining up various views of square based pyramids, I found something odd. Which them seemed to work for pentagonal based pyramids. And so I would like a bit of confirmation about this theory.

The theory

Imagine a regular, square based pyramid in such a way that you can rotate it in every $3$-dimensional plane of rotation.

Now, rotate it so that you can only see $3$ of the triangular faces. The base doesn't count. Can you?

  • It is fairly easy to see $1$ face; look at it face on.

  • $2$ faces is also quite basic; look at a corner.

  • For $4$ faces, simply look at a plan view of the pyramid.

But how do you see $3$ faces?

Now picture a pentagonal based pyramid in the same position. Can you rotate it in any way to see $4$ of the triangular faces?

My theory is that given a regular polygonal based pyramid where the number of sides of the base is $n$, it is impossible to see $n-1$ triangular faces as long as $n > 3$

(Actual question)

Is this true? I'm looking for a mathematical proof to this as I can't simply imagine up a $200000$ faced pyramid and test this but I can apply a mathematical formula to it.

However! As you may have noticed above, I am in high school and so please keep your proofs fairly basic. If this is impossible, please offer a detailed explanation of how your proof works. I don't think that it is too unreasonable to say that if I can't understand your answer, I can't accept it.

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ You can see three of the four triangular faces - just look at it from above and tilt it until you can't see the face furthest from you - you will still see the other three. $\endgroup$ – Zubin Mukerjee Jun 5 '17 at 20:11

This is not true - you can see only three of the four triangular faces of a regular square pyramid. For example:

enter image description here

I got that image as a screenshot from this video since I didn't have a regular square pyramid nearby.

As Ross Millikan pointed out in the comments, it is also not true for a pyramid with $n$ triangular faces and a regular $n$-gon as the base.

The method of starting with a point of view from which you can see all $n$ triangular faces, then tilting the pyramid until the furthest face is no longer visible, will still allow you to see exactly $n-1$ triangular faces.

This is not a rigorous proof - in order to write on you would probably need to formally section $\mathbb{R}^3$ into $n$ different subsets based on which points can see each of the $n$ faces, then show that there exists a collection of $n-1$ of these "visibility" sets whose intersection is nonempty.

For me, the non-rigorous reasoning is enough to convince me that the statement isn't true, so I am not going to spend the time to try to write a rigorous disproof.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The same approach works for any number of sides. $\endgroup$ – Ross Millikan Jun 5 '17 at 20:15
  • $\begingroup$ This doesn't actually answer my full question. Is there a mathematical formula to prove/disprove my theory? $\endgroup$ – caird coinheringaahing Jun 5 '17 at 20:23
  • $\begingroup$ @cairdcoinheringaahing I've edited the answer to include the case for $n$ triangular faces and a regular $n$-gon as the base $\endgroup$ – Zubin Mukerjee Jun 5 '17 at 20:33
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @ZubinMukerjee ok that's good enough. I think it would be a little mean to ask for something like that. $\endgroup$ – caird coinheringaahing Jun 5 '17 at 20:41

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.