Go on, then. Why can't a polyhedron with many sides approximate a sphere?

He's using a **polygon** count limit approaching infinity to **construct** the sphere. The infinite 'corners', are the **vertices of the polygons** creating the sphere, and would parallel individual time lines extending from the beginning of time.

I think the confusion arose from implying that we needed a polyhedrons to

**build** an approximation of a sphere. I'm sure you meant the overall shape was a polyhedron, but actually

**building** the shape requires polygons.

We can at least say that a polyhedron is built up from different kinds of element or entity, each associated with a different number of dimensions:

*Polyhedron: 3 dimensions - the body is bounded by the faces, and is usually the volume inside them.*

Polygon: 2 dimensions - a face is a polygon bounded by a circuit of edges, and usually including the flat (plane) region inside the boundary. These polygonal faces together make up the polyhedral surface.

Edge: 1 dimension - An edge joins one vertex to another and one face to another, and is usually a line of some kind. The edges together make up the polyhedral skeleton.

Vertex: 0 dimensions - A vertex (plural vertices) is a corner point.

Nullity: -1 dimension - The nullity is a kind of non-entity required by abstract theories.Building a 3D model out of 3D components seems like an irrelevant tangent to the discussion, and also should not be asserting a fallacy in building it out of 2D components.